Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: get out of a repeat loop when getting a locked data page

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On 04/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2023/4/6 11:18, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 04/06, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > On 2023/4/6 0:39, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > On 03/27, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 08:30:33AM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > > On 03/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2023/3/24 5:39, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > > > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Somehow we're getting a page which has a different mapping.
> > > > > > > > Let's avoid the infinite loop.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >     fs/f2fs/data.c | 8 ++------
> > > > > > > >     1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > > > > > > > index bf51e6e4eb64..80702c93e885 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -1329,18 +1329,14 @@ struct page *f2fs_get_lock_data_page(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
> > > > > > > >     {
> > > > > > > >     	struct address_space *mapping = inode->i_mapping;
> > > > > > > >     	struct page *page;
> > > > > > > > -repeat:
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > >     	page = f2fs_get_read_data_page(inode, index, 0, for_write, NULL);
> > > > > > > >     	if (IS_ERR(page))
> > > > > > > >     		return page;
> > > > > > > >     	/* wait for read completion */
> > > > > > > >     	lock_page(page);
> > > > > > > > -	if (unlikely(page->mapping != mapping)) {
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > How about using such logic only for move_data_page() to limit affect for
> > > > > > > other paths?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Why move_data_page() only? If this happens, we'll fall into a loop in anywhere?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Jaegeuk, any thoughts about why mapping is mismatch in between page's one and
> > > > > > > inode->i_mapping?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > After several times code review, I didn't get any clue about why f2fs always
> > > > > > > get the different mapping in a loop.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I couldn't find the path to happen this. So weird. Please check the history in the
> > > > > > bug.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Maybe we can loop MM guys to check whether below folio_file_page() may return
> > > > > > > page which has different mapping?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Matthew may have some idea on this?
> > > > > 
> > > > > There's a lot of comments in the bug ... hard to come into this one
> > > > > cold.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I did notice this one (#119):
> > > > > : Interestingly, ref count is 514, which looks suspiciously as a binary
> > > > > : flag 1000000010. Is it possible that during 5.17/5.18 implementation
> > > > > : of a "pin", somehow binary flag was written to ref count, or something
> > > > > : like '1 << ...' happens?
> > > > > 
> > > > > That indicates to me that somehow you've got hold of a THP that is in
> > > > > the page cache.  Probably shmem/tmpfs.  That indicate to me a refcount
> > > > > problem that looks something like this:
> > > > > 
> > > > > f2fs allocates a page
> > > > > f2fs adds the page to the page cache
> > > > > f2fs puts the reference to the page without removing it from the
> > > > > page cache (how?)
> > > > 
> > > > Is it somewhat related to setting a bit in private field?
> > > 
> > > IIUC, it looks the page reference is added/removed as pair.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > When we migrate the blocks, we do:
> > > > 1) get_lock_page()
> > > 
> > > - f2fs_grab_cache_page
> > >   - pagecache_get_page
> > >    - __filemap_get_folio
> > >     - no_page  -> filemap_alloc_folio  page_ref = 1 (referenced by caller)
> > >      - filemap_add_folio page_ref = 2 (referenced by radix tree)
> > > 
> > > > 2) submit read
> > > > 3) lock_page()
> > > > 3) set_page_dirty()
> > > > 4) set_page_private_gcing(page)
> > > 
> > > page_ref = 3 (reference by private data)
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- in fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > > > 1409 #define PAGE_PRIVATE_SET_FUNC(name, flagname) \
> > > > 1410 static inline void set_page_private_##name(struct page *page) \
> > > > 1411 { \
> > > > 1412         if (!PagePrivate(page)) { \
> > > > 1413                 get_page(page); \
> > > > 1414                 SetPagePrivate(page); \
> > > > 1415                 set_page_private(page, 0); \
> > > > 1416         } \
> > > > 1417         set_bit(PAGE_PRIVATE_NOT_POINTER, &page_private(page)); \
> > > > 1418         set_bit(PAGE_PRIVATE_##flagname, &page_private(page)); \
> > > > 1419 }
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 5) set_page_writebac()
> > > > 6) submit write
> > > > 7) unlock_page()
> > > > 8) put_page(page)
> > > 
> > > page_ref = 2 (ref by caller was removed)
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Later, f2fs_invalidate_folio will do put_page again by:
> > > > clear_page_private_gcing(&folio->page);
> > > 
> > > page_ref = 1 (ref by private was removed, and the last left ref is hold by radix tree)
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- in fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > > > 1421 #define PAGE_PRIVATE_CLEAR_FUNC(name, flagname) \
> > > > 1422 static inline void clear_page_private_##name(struct page *page) \
> > > > 1423 { \
> > > > 1424         clear_bit(PAGE_PRIVATE_##flagname, &page_private(page)); \
> > > > 1425         if (page_private(page) == BIT(PAGE_PRIVATE_NOT_POINTER)) { \
> > > > 1426                 set_page_private(page, 0); \
> > > > 1427                 if (PagePrivate(page)) { \
> > > > 1428                         ClearPagePrivate(page); \
> > > 
> > > Since PagePrivate was cleared, so folio_detach_private in
> > > f2fs_invalidate_folio()/f2fs_release_folio will just skip drop reference.
> > > 
> > > static inline void *folio_detach_private(struct folio *folio)
> > > {
> > > 	void *data = folio_get_private(folio);
> > > 
> > > 	if (!folio_test_private(folio))
> > > 		return NULL;
> > > 	folio_clear_private(folio);
> > > 	folio->private = NULL;
> > > 	folio_put(folio);
> > > 
> > > 	return data;
> > > }
> > > 
> > > Or am I missing something?
> > 
> > Ah, I missed folio_test_private() tho, can we really expect get_page(),
> > SetPagePrivate(), and set_page_private() is in pair with folio_detach_private()?
> 
> I guess we are trying to maintain PagePrivate and page_private w/
> inner {set,clear}_page_private_* functions, if they are called in paired correctly,
> we don't need to call folio_detach_private() additionally in .release_folio and
> .invalid_folio, right? Otherwise there must be a bug.

Agreed.

> 
> In this patch, I use bug_on to instead folio_detach_private().
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-f2fs-devel/20230410022418.1843178-1-chao@xxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> In this patch, I use {attach,detach}_page_private() to clean up openned codes.
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-f2fs-devel/20230410022418.1843178-2-chao@xxxxxxxxxx/

Looks like it doesn't need to apply two patches, and missed f2fs_delete_entry
case as well.