From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-oi1-x241.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::241]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1gXShf-0007ws-9y for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:15:08 +0000 Received: by mail-oi1-x241.google.com with SMTP id t204so1876314oie.7 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 07:14:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: ubifs: fix page_count in ->ubifs_migrate_page() To: Richard Weinberger Cc: Artem Bityutskiy , Adrian Hunter , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, hch@lst.de, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org References: <1544624037-3436-1-git-send-email-openzhangj@gmail.com> <5829763.q4qAXljTxb@blindfold> From: zhangjun Message-ID: <16c76437-d331-ac37-9c08-148189f9d98f@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 23:14:37 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5829763.q4qAXljTxb@blindfold> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 2018/12/13 下午10:23, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Hello zhangjun, > > thanks a lot for bringing this up! > > Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2018, 15:13:57 CET schrieb zhangjun: >> Because the PagePrivate() in UBIFS is different meanings, >> alloc_cma() will fail when one dirty page cache located in >> the type of MIGRATE_CMA >> >> If not adjust the 'extra_count' for dirty page, >> ubifs_migrate_page() -> migrate_page_move_mapping() will >> always return -EAGAIN for: >> expected_count += page_has_private(page) >> This causes the migration to fail until the page cache is cleaned >> >> In general, PagePrivate() indicates that buff_head is already bound >> to this page, and at the same time page_count() will also increase. >> But UBIFS set private flag when the cache is dirty, and page_count() >> not increase. >> Therefore, the expected_count of UBIFS is different from the general >> case. > As you noted, UBIFS uses PG_private a little different. > It uses it as marker and when set, the page counter is not incremented, > since no private data is attached. > The migration code assumes that PG_private indicates a counter of +1. > So, we have to pass a extra count of -1 to migrate_page_move_mapping() if > the flag is set. > Just like F2FS does. Not really nice but hey... > >> Signed-off-by: zhangjun > Fixes: 4ac1c17b2044 ("UBIFS: Implement ->migratepage()") > >> --- >> fs/ubifs/file.c | 9 ++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/file.c b/fs/ubifs/file.c >> index 1b78f2e..2136a5c 100644 >> --- a/fs/ubifs/file.c >> +++ b/fs/ubifs/file.c >> @@ -1480,8 +1480,15 @@ static int ubifs_migrate_page(struct address_space *mapping, >> struct page *newpage, struct page *page, enum migrate_mode mode) >> { >> int rc; >> + int extra_count; >> >> - rc = migrate_page_move_mapping(mapping, newpage, page, NULL, mode, 0); >> + /* >> + * UBIFS is using PagePrivate() which can have different meanings across >> + * filesystems. So here adjusting the 'extra_count' make it work. >> + */ > Please rewrite that comment. > /* > * UBIFS uses PG_private as marker and does not raise the page counter. > * migrate_page_move_mapping() expects a incremented counter if PG_private > * is set. Therefore pass -1 as extra_count for this case. > */ > >> + extra_count = 0 - page_has_private(page); > if (page_has_private(page)) > extra_count = -1; > > That way this corner is much more obvious. > > Thanks, > //richard > > Hello Richard. Thank you very much for your help. 1. Can i use your description for comment? like this: /* * UBIFS uses PG_private a little different. * It uses it as marker and when set, the page counter is not incremented, * since no private data is attached. * The migration code assumes that PG_private indicates a counter of +1. * So, we have to pass a extra count of -1 to migrate_page_move_mapping() if * the flag is set. */ 2. It's more obvious, but the branch may break the cpu pipeline?