Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?

Andrew Morton
2006-05-30T03:13:43Z

On Tue, 30 May 2006 12:54:53 +1000
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 30 May 2006 10:08:06 +1000
> >Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Which is what I want to know. I don't exactly have an interesting
> >>disk setup.
> >>
> >
> >You don't need one - just a single disk should show up such problems. I
> >forget which workloads though. Perhaps just a linear read (readahead
> >queues the I/O but doesn't unplug, subsequent lock_page() sulks).
> >
>
> I guess so. Is plugging still needed now that the IO layer should
> get larger requests? Disabling it might result in a small initial
> request (although even that may be good for pipelining)...

Mysterious question, that. A few years ago I think Jens tried pulling unplugging
out, but some devices still want it (magneto-optical storage iirc). And I
think we did try removing it, and it caused hurt.

> Otherwise, we could make set_page_dirty_lock use a weird non-unplugging
> variant

Yes, that would work. In fact the number of times when direct-io actually
calls set_page_dirty_lock() is infinitesimal - I had to jump through hoops
to even test that code. The speculative
set-the-page-dirty-before-we-do-the-IO thing is very effective. So the
performace impact of making such a change would be nil.

That's for the direct-io case. Other cases might be hurt more.

Also, perhaps we could poke kblockd to do it for us.

> sync_page wants to get either the current mapping, or a NULL one.
> The sync_page methods must then be able to handle running into a
> NULL mapping.
>
> With splice, the mapping can change, so you can have the wrong
> sync_page callback run against the page.

Oh.

> >
> >>Well yes, writing to a page would be the main reason to set it dirty.
> >>Is splice broken as well? I'm not sure that it always has a ref on the
> >>inode when stealing a page.
> >>
> >
> >Whereabouts?
> >
>
> The ->pin() calls in pipe_to_file and pipe_to_sendpage?

One for Jens...

> >
> >>It sounds like you think fixing the set_page_dirty_lock callers wouldn't
> >>be too difficult? I wouldn't know (although the ptrace one should be
> >>able to be turned into a set_page_dirty, because we're holding mmap_sem).
> >>
> >
> >No, I think it's damn impossible ;)
> >
> >get_user_pages() has gotten us a random pagecache page. How do we
> >non-racily get at the address_space prior to locking that page?
> >
> >I don't think we can.
> >
>
> But the vma isn't going to disappear because mmap_sem is held; and the
> vma should hold a ref on the inode I think?

That's true during the get_user_pages() call. Be we run
set_page_dirty_lock() much later, after IO completion.

> >
> >>You're sure about all other lock_page()rs? I'm not, given that
> >>set_page_dirty_lock got it so wrong. But you'd have a better idea than
> >>me.
> >>
> >
> >No, I'm not sure.
> >
> >However it is rare for the kernel to play with pagecache pages against
> >which the caller doesn't have an inode ref. Think: how did the caller look
> >up that page in the first place if not from the address_space in the first
> >place?
> >
> >- get_user_pages(): the current problem
> >
> >- page LRU: OK, uses trylock first.
> >
> >- pagetable walk??
> >
>
> Am I wrong about mmap_sem?
>
> Anyway, it is possible that most of the problems could be solved by locking
> the page at the time of lookup, and unlocking it on completion/dirtying...
> it's just that that would be a bit of a task.

But lock_page() requires access to the address_space. To kick the IO so we
don't wait for ever.

> Can we somehow add BUG_ONs to
> lock_page to ensure we've got an inode ref?

WARN_ONs.