[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectOk, explained.. (was Re: [PATCH] mm: fix page_mkclean_one)

    On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > So everything I have ever seen says that the VM layer is actually doing
    > everything right.

    That was true, but at the same time, it's not. Let me explain.

    > That to me says: "somebody didn't actually write out out". The VM layer
    > asked the filesystem to do the write, but the filesystem just didn't do
    > it. I personally think it's because some buffer-head BH_dirty bit got
    > scrogged

    Ok, I have proof of this now.

    Here's a trace (with cycle counts), and with a new trace event added: this
    is for another corrupted page. I have:

    49105 PG 000015d8 (14800): mm/page-writeback.c:872 clean_for_io
    49106 PG 000015d8 (6900): mm/rmap.c:451 cleaning PTE b7fa6000
    49107 PG 000015d8 (9900): mm/page-writeback.c:914 set writeback
    49108 PG 000015d8 (6480): mm/page-writeback.c:916 setting TAG_WRITEBACK
    49109 PG 000015d8 (7110): mm/page-writeback.c:922 clearing TAG_DIRTY
    49110 PG 000015d8 (7190): fs/buffer.c:1713 no IO underway
    49111 PG 000015d8 (6180): mm/page-writeback.c:891 end writeback
    49112 PG 000015d8 (6460): mm/page-writeback.c:893 clearing TAG_WRITEBACK

    where that first column is the trace event number again, and the "PG
    000015d8" is that corrupted page. The thing in the parenthesis is "CPU
    cycles since last event), and the important part to note is that this is
    indeed all one single thing with no actual IO anywhere (~7000 CPU cycles
    may sound like a lot, but (a) it's not that many cache misses and (b) a
    lot of it is the logging overhead - back-to-back log events will take
    about 3500 cycles) just because it does the actual ASCII printk() etc.

    Also, the new event is:

    fs/buffer.c:1713 no IO underway

    which is just the

    if (nr_underway == 0)

    case in fs/buffer.c

    And I now finally really believe that I fully understand the corruption,
    but I don't have a simple solution, much less a patch.

    What the problem basically boils down to is that "set_page_dirty()" is
    supposed to be a mark for dirtying THE WHOLE PAGE, but it really is not
    "the whole page when the 'set_page_dirty()' itself happens", but more of a
    "the next writepage() needs to write back the whole page" thing.

    And that's not what "__set_page_dirty_buffers()" really does.

    Because what "__set_page_dirty_buffers()" does is that AT THE TIME THE
    "set_page_dirty()" IS CALLED, it will mark all the buffers on that page as
    dirty. That may _sound_ like what we want, but it really isn't. Because by
    the time "writepage()" is actually called (which can be MUCH MUCH later),
    some internal filesystem activity may actually have cleaned one or more of
    those buffers in the meantime, and now we call "writepage()" (which really
    wants to write them _all_), and it will write only part of them, or none
    at all.

    So the VM thought that since it did a "writepage()", all the dirty state
    at that point got written back. But it didn't - the filesystem could have
    written back part or all of the page much earlier, and the writepage()
    actually does nothing at all.

    Both filesystem and VM actually _think_ they do the right thing, because
    they simply have totally different expectations. The filesystem thinks
    that it should care about dirty buffers (that got marked dirty _after_
    they were dirtied), while the filesystem thinks that it cares about dirty
    _pages_ (that got dirted at any time _before_ "writepage()" was called).

    Neither is really "wrong", per se, it's just that the two parts have
    different expectations, and the _combination_ just doesn't work.
    "set_page_dirty()" at some point meant "the writes have been done", but
    these days it really means something else.

    Now, the reason there is no trivial patch is not that this is conceptually
    really hard to fix. I can see several different approaches to fixing it,
    but they all really boil down to two alternatives:

    (a) splitting the one "PG_dirty" bit up into two bits: the
    "PG_writescheduled" bit and the "PG_alldirty" bit.

    The "PG_write_scheduled" bit would be the bit that the filesystem
    would set when it has pending dirty data that it wrote itself (and
    that may not cover the whole page), and is the part of PG_dirty that
    sets the PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY. It's also what forces "writepage()" to
    be called.

    The "PG_alldirty" bit is just an additional "somebody else dirtied
    random parts of this page, and we don't know what" flag, which is set
    by "set_page_dirty()" in addition to doing the PG_write_scheduled
    stuff. We would test-and-clear it at "writepage()" time, and pass it
    in to "writepages()" to tell the writepage() function that it can't
    just write out its own small limited notion of what is dirty.

    (There are various variations on this whole theme: instead of having
    a flag to "writepage()", we could split the "whole page" case out as
    a separate callback or similar)

    (b) making sure that all "set_page_dirty()" calls are _after_ the page
    has been marked dirty (which in the case of memory mapped pages would
    mean that we would _not_ call it when we mark the page writable at
    all, we would call it when we _remove_ the dirty bit and mark it
    unwritable). That would have the nice fearture that it wouldn't
    require any FS-level changes, which would be a nice thing - it would
    basically make the VM dirty accounting work the way the FS layer now
    already expects it to.

    I think (b) is conceptually simpler, and I think I'll try it tomorrow
    after I've slept on it. The reason I mention (a) at all is that I like the
    conceptual notion of telling he filesystem ahead of time that "you're
    going to get a full dirty page", because what (b) will inevitably lead to
    is that the filesystem will maintain its own partial state, and then
    effectively just before it gets the writepage() notification, it will be
    told it was all pointless, because we just dirtied the whole thing.

    IOW, the advantage of (a) is also it's disadvantage: it tells the
    filesystem more. The disadvantage is that it would require VFS interface
    changes exactly to do that (ie the "mapping->set_page_dirty()" semantics
    would also be split up into two, and it would now be a "prepare to write
    the whole page during the next 'writepage()'" thing).

    So to recap: the VM layer really expected "writepage()" to act as if it
    wrote out the whole page. It doesn't. Not in the presense of the buffer
    layer and the filesystem having written out some buffers independently of
    the VM layer earlier.

    I think this also explains why "data=ordered" broke, and "data=writeback"
    didn't. When ext3 does "ordered" writebacks, it will do file data
    writebacks on its own, in _its_ order. In contrast, when it does
    "data=writeback", it will do the writebacks exactly as the VM presents
    them, and won't write any buffers on its own - which makes the bug go
    away, because now VM and FS end up agreeing about the semantics of

    Andrew, do you see anything wrong in my thinking?

    Peter - on a VM level, the fix would be:

    - remove the "set_page_dirty()" from the page fault path, and just set
    the PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY instead.

    - clear_page_dirty_for_io() would now need to check the mappings of the
    page even if it wasn't marked PG_dirty (or we'd have another page flag
    for the "page is dirty in page tables"), which is kind of a mixture of
    (a) and (b) cases above, except we don't expose it to the FS.

    - if it was dirty in the page tables, we do a "set_page_dirty()" after
    cleaning the page tables, and then the rest of
    "clear_page_dirty_for_io()" really boils down to a simple

    Hmm? I'd love it if somebody else wrote the patch and tested it, because
    I'm getting sick and tired of this bug ;)

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.043 / U:7.884 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site