On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 11:30 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, May 19 2008, Mingming Cao wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 13:25 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 May 2008 12:59:18 -0700
> > > Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 00:37 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > >   Hi,
> > > > > 
> > > > > > This patch fixed a few races between direct IO and kjournald commit
> > > > > > transaction.  An unexpected EIO error gets returned to direct IO
> > > > > > caller when it failed to free those data buffers. This could be
> > > > > > reproduced easily with parallel direct write and buffered write to the
> > > > > > same file
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > More specific, those races could cause journal_try_to_free_buffers()
> > > > > > fail to free the data buffers, when jbd is committing the transaction
> > > > > > that has those data buffers on its t_syncdata_list or t_locked_list.
> > > > > > journal_commit_transaction() still holds the reference to those
> > > > > > buffers before data reach to disk and buffers are removed from the
> > > > > > t_syncdata_list of t_locked_list. This prevent the concurrent
> > > > > > journal_try_to_free_buffers() to free those buffers at the same time,
> > > > > > but cause EIO error returns back to direct IO.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > With this patch, in case of direct IO and when try_to_free_buffers() failed,
> > > > > > let's waiting for journal_commit_transaction() to finish
> > > > > > flushing the current committing transaction's data buffers to disk, 
> > > > > > then try to free those buffers again.
> > > > >   If Andrew or Christoph wouldn't beat you for "inventive use" of
> > > > > gfp_mask, I'm fine with the patch as well ;). You can add
> > > > >   Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > This is less intrusive way to fix this problem. The gfp_mask was marked
> > > > as unused in try_to_free_page(). I looked at filesystems in the kernel,
> > > > there is only a few defined releasepage() callback, and only xfs checks
> > > > the flag(but not used). btrfs is actually using it though. I thought
> > > > about the way you have suggested, i.e.clean up this gfp_mask and and
> > > > replace with a flag.  I am not entirely sure if it we need to change the
> > > > address_space_operations and fix all the filesystems for this matter.
> > > > 
> > > > Andrew, what do you think? Is this approach acceptable? 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > <wakes up>
> > > 
> > > Please ensure that the final patch is sufficiently well changelogged to
> > > permit me to remain asleep ;)
> > :-)
> > > The ->releasepage semantics are fairly ad-hoc and have grown over time.
> > > It'd be nice to prevent them from becoming vaguer than they are.
> > > 
> > > It has been (approximately?) the case that code paths which really care
> > > about having the page released will set __GFP_WAIT (via GFP_KERNEL)
> > > whereas code paths which are happy with best-effort will clear
> > > __GFP_WAIT (with a "0').  And that's reasonsable - __GFP_WAIT here
> > > means "be synchronous" whereas !__GFP_WAIT means "be non-blocking".
> > > 
> > 
> > This make sense to me.
> > 
> > > Is that old convention not sufficient here as well?  Two problem areas
> > > I see are mm/vmscan.c and fs/splice.c (there may be others).
> > > 
> > 
> > > In mm/vmscan.c we probably don't want your new synchronous behaviour
> > > and it might well be deadlockable anyway.  No probs, that's what
> > > __GFP_FS is for.
> > > 
> > Sure. We could check __GFP_FS and __GFP_WAIT, and that make sense.
> > 
> > > In fs/splice.c, reading the comment there I have a feeling that you've
> > > found another bug, and that splice _does_ want your new synchronous
> > > behaviour?
> > 
> > Yes, it looks like page_cache_pipe_buf_steal() expects page is free
> > before removeing it by passing the GFP_KERNEL flag, but currently ext3
> > could fails to releasepage when it called. In fact
> > try_to_release_page() return value is ignored in
> > page_cache_pipe_buf_steal(), should probably checked the failure case.
> > 
> > 
> > The other caller of try_to_release_page() in mm/splice.c is
> > fallback_migrate_page(), which does want the synchronous behaviour to
> > make sure buffers are dropped.
> 
> So something like this, then?
> 
Acked-by: Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>
quoted text
> diff --git a/fs/splice.c b/fs/splice.c
> index 7815003..e08a2f5 100644
> --- a/fs/splice.c
> +++ b/fs/splice.c
> @@ -58,8 +58,8 @@ static int page_cache_pipe_buf_steal(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe,
>  		 */
>  		wait_on_page_writeback(page);
> 
> -		if (PagePrivate(page))
> -			try_to_release_page(page, GFP_KERNEL);
> +		if (PagePrivate(page) && !try_to_release_page(page, GFP_KERNEL))
> +			goto out_unlock;
> 
>  		/*
>  		 * If we succeeded in removing the mapping, set LRU flag
> @@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ static int page_cache_pipe_buf_steal(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe,
>  	 * Raced with truncate or failed to remove page from current
>  	 * address space, unlock and return failure.
>  	 */
> +out_unlock:
>  	unlock_page(page);
>  	return 1;
>  }
> 

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/