Re: [PATCH] Fix dirty page accounting in redirty_page_for_writepage()

Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-04-30T02:39:24Z

* Andrew Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org) wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:25:46 -0400
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> wrote:
>
> > Basically, the following execution :
> >
> > dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/testfile
> >
> > will slowly fill _all_ ram available without taking into account memory
> > pressure.
> >
> > This is because the dirty page accounting is incorrect in
> > redirty_page_for_writepage.
> >
> > This patch adds missing dirty page accounting in redirty_page_for_writepage().
>
> The patch changes __set_page_dirty_nobuffers(), not
> redirty_page_for_writepage().
>
> __set_page_dirty_nobuffers() has a huge number of callers.
>

Right.

> > --- linux-2.6-lttng.orig/mm/page-writeback.c 2009-04-29 18:14:48.000000000 -0400
> > +++ linux-2.6-lttng/mm/page-writeback.c 2009-04-29 18:23:59.000000000 -0400
> > @@ -1237,6 +1237,12 @@ int __set_page_dirty_nobuffers(struct pa
> > if (!mapping)
> > return 1;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Take care of setting back page accounting correctly.
> > + */
> > + inc_zone_page_state(page, NR_FILE_DIRTY);
> > + inc_bdi_stat(mapping->backing_dev_info, BDI_RECLAIMABLE);
> > +
> > spin_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> > mapping2 = page_mapping(page);
> > if (mapping2) { /* Race with truncate? */
> >
>
> But __set_page_dirty_nobuffers() calls account_page_dirtied(), which
> already does the above two operations. afacit we're now
> double-accounting.
>

Yes, you are right.

> Now, it's possible that the accounting goes wrong very occasionally in
> the "/* Race with truncate? */" case. If the truncate path clears the
> page's dirty bit then it will decrement the dirty-page accounting, but
> this code path will fail to perform the increment of the dirty-page
> accounting. IOW, once this function has set PG_Dirty, it is committed
> to altering some or all of the page-dirty accounting.
>
> But afacit your test case will not trigger the race-with-truncate anyway?
>
> Can you determine at approximately what frequency (pages-per-second)
> this accounting leak is occurring in your test?
>

0 per minute actually. I've tried adding a printk when the

if (mapping2) {

} else {
<--
}

case is hit, and it never triggered in my tests.

I am currently trying to figure out if I can reproduce the OOM problems
I had experienced with 2.6.29-rc3. I investigate memory accounting by
turning the memory accounting code into a slow cache-line bouncing
version and by adding some assertions about the fact that per-zone
global counters must never go below zero. Having unbalanced accounting
could have some nasty long-term effects on memory pressure accounting.

But so far the memory accounting code looks solid. It's my bad then. I
cannot reproduce the behavior I noticed with 2.6.29-rc3, so I guess we
should we consider this a non-issue (or code 9 if you prefer). ;)

Thanks for looking into this.

Mathieu

--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68