From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: initialize page->private when using for our internal use
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 11:04:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YONJpQapR7BRnW/J@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YOLxZAnaKSwBIlK9@casper.infradead.org>
On 07/05, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 07:33:35PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> > On 2021/7/5 16:56, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > On 07/05, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > On 2021/7/5 13:22, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > We need to guarantee it's initially zero. Otherwise, it'll hurt entire flag
> > > > > operations.
> > > >
> > > > Oops, I didn't get the point, shouldn't .private be zero after page was
> > > > just allocated by filesystem? What's the case we will encounter stall
> > > > private data left in page?
> > >
> > > I'm seeing f2fs_migrate_page() has the newpage with some value without Private
> > > flag. That causes a kernel panic later due to wrong private flag used in f2fs.
> >
> > I'm not familiar with that part of codes, so Cc mm mailing list for help.
> >
> > My question is newpage in .migrate_page() may contain non-zero value in .private
> > field but w/o setting PagePrivate flag, is it a normal case?
>
> I think freshly allocated pages have a page->private of 0. ie this
> code in mm/page_alloc.c:
>
> page = rmqueue(ac->preferred_zoneref->zone, zone, order,
> gfp_mask, alloc_flags, ac->migratetype);
> if (page) {
> prep_new_page(page, order, gfp_mask, alloc_flags);
>
> where prep_new_page() calls post_alloc_hook() which contains:
> set_page_private(page, 0);
>
> Now, I do see in __buffer_migrate_page() (mm/migrate.c):
>
> attach_page_private(newpage, detach_page_private(page));
>
> but as far as I can tell, f2fs doesn't call any of the
> buffer_migrate_page() paths. So I'm not sure why you're seeing
> a non-zero page->private.
Hmm, I can see it in 4.14 and 5.10 kernel.
The trace is on:
30875 [ 1065.118750] c3 87 f2fs_migrate_page+0x354/0x45c
30876 [ 1065.123872] c3 87 move_to_new_page+0x70/0x30c
30877 [ 1065.128813] c3 87 migrate_pages+0x3a0/0x964
30878 [ 1065.133583] c3 87 compact_zone+0x608/0xb04
30879 [ 1065.138257] c3 87 kcompactd+0x378/0x4ec
30880 [ 1065.142664] c3 87 kthread+0x11c/0x12c
30881 [ 1065.146897] c3 87 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
It seems compaction_alloc() gets a free page which doesn't reset the fields?
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: initialize page->private when using for our internal use
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 11:04:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YONJpQapR7BRnW/J@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YOLxZAnaKSwBIlK9@casper.infradead.org>
On 07/05, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 07:33:35PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> > On 2021/7/5 16:56, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > On 07/05, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > On 2021/7/5 13:22, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > We need to guarantee it's initially zero. Otherwise, it'll hurt entire flag
> > > > > operations.
> > > >
> > > > Oops, I didn't get the point, shouldn't .private be zero after page was
> > > > just allocated by filesystem? What's the case we will encounter stall
> > > > private data left in page?
> > >
> > > I'm seeing f2fs_migrate_page() has the newpage with some value without Private
> > > flag. That causes a kernel panic later due to wrong private flag used in f2fs.
> >
> > I'm not familiar with that part of codes, so Cc mm mailing list for help.
> >
> > My question is newpage in .migrate_page() may contain non-zero value in .private
> > field but w/o setting PagePrivate flag, is it a normal case?
>
> I think freshly allocated pages have a page->private of 0. ie this
> code in mm/page_alloc.c:
>
> page = rmqueue(ac->preferred_zoneref->zone, zone, order,
> gfp_mask, alloc_flags, ac->migratetype);
> if (page) {
> prep_new_page(page, order, gfp_mask, alloc_flags);
>
> where prep_new_page() calls post_alloc_hook() which contains:
> set_page_private(page, 0);
>
> Now, I do see in __buffer_migrate_page() (mm/migrate.c):
>
> attach_page_private(newpage, detach_page_private(page));
>
> but as far as I can tell, f2fs doesn't call any of the
> buffer_migrate_page() paths. So I'm not sure why you're seeing
> a non-zero page->private.
Hmm, I can see it in 4.14 and 5.10 kernel.
The trace is on:
30875 [ 1065.118750] c3 87 f2fs_migrate_page+0x354/0x45c
30876 [ 1065.123872] c3 87 move_to_new_page+0x70/0x30c
30877 [ 1065.128813] c3 87 migrate_pages+0x3a0/0x964
30878 [ 1065.133583] c3 87 compact_zone+0x608/0xb04
30879 [ 1065.138257] c3 87 kcompactd+0x378/0x4ec
30880 [ 1065.142664] c3 87 kthread+0x11c/0x12c
30881 [ 1065.146897] c3 87 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
It seems compaction_alloc() gets a free page which doesn't reset the fields?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-05 18:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-05 5:22 [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: initialize page->private when using for our internal use Jaegeuk Kim
2021-07-05 5:22 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2021-07-05 6:32 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu
2021-07-05 6:32 ` Chao Yu
2021-07-05 8:56 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2021-07-05 8:56 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2021-07-05 11:33 ` Chao Yu
2021-07-05 11:33 ` Chao Yu
2021-07-05 11:47 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-07-05 11:47 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-07-05 16:09 ` Chao Yu
2021-07-05 16:09 ` Chao Yu
2021-07-05 18:06 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2021-07-05 18:06 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2021-07-06 0:16 ` Chao Yu
2021-07-06 0:16 ` Chao Yu
2021-07-05 18:04 ` Jaegeuk Kim [this message]
2021-07-05 18:04 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2021-07-05 18:45 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-07-05 18:45 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-07-06 9:12 ` Mel Gorman
2021-07-06 9:12 ` Mel Gorman
2021-07-07 0:48 ` Chao Yu
2021-07-07 0:48 ` Chao Yu
2021-07-07 9:57 ` Mel Gorman
2021-07-07 9:57 ` Mel Gorman
2021-07-10 8:11 ` Chao Yu
2021-07-10 8:11 ` Chao Yu
2021-07-12 6:53 ` Michal Hocko via Linux-f2fs-devel
2021-07-12 6:53 ` Michal Hocko
2021-07-13 0:46 ` Chao Yu
2021-07-13 0:46 ` Chao Yu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YONJpQapR7BRnW/J@google.com \
--to=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.