On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 06:01:19AM +0000, Williams, Dan J wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-11-06 at 06:48 -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 03:44:47AM +0000, Williams, Dan J wrote:
> > > Hi Willy,
> > >
> > > I'm seeing the following warning with v4.20-rc1 and the "dax.sh"
> > > test
> > > from the ndctl repository:
> >
> > I'll try to run this myself later today.
> >
> > > I tried to get this test going on -next before the merge window,
> > > but
> > > -next was not bootable for me. Bisection points to:
> > >
> > > 9f32d221301c dax: Convert dax_lock_mapping_entry to XArray
> > >
> > > At first glance I think we need the old "always retry if we slept"
> > > behavior. Otherwise this failure seems similar to the issue fixed
> > > by
> > > Ross' change to always retry on any potential collision:
> > >
> > > b1f382178d15 ext4: close race between direct IO and
> > > ext4_break_layouts()
> > >
> > > I'll take a closer look tomorrow to see if that guess is plausible.
> >
> > I don't quite understand how we'd find a PFN for this page in the
> > tree
> > after the page has had page->mapping removed. However, the more I
> > look
> > at this path, the more I don't like it -- it doesn't handle returning
> > NULL explicitly, nor does it handle the situation where a PMD is
> > split
> > to form multiple PTEs explicitly, it just kind of relies on those bit
> > patterns not matching.
> >
> > So I kind of like the "just retry without doing anything clever"
> > situation
> > that the above patch takes us to.
>
> I've been hacking at this today and am starting to lean towards
> "revert" over "fix" for the amount of changes needed to get this back
> on its feet. I've been able to get the test passing again with the
> below changes directly on top of commit 9f32d221301c "dax: Convert
> dax_lock_mapping_entry to XArray". That said, I have thus far been
> unable to rebase this patch on top of v4.20-rc1 and yield a functional
> result.
I think it's a little premature to go for "revert". Sure, if it's
not fixed in three-four weeks, but we don't normally jump straight to
"revert" at -rc1.
> My concerns are:
> - I can't determine if dax_unlock_entry() wants an unlocked entry
> parameter, or locked. The dax_insert_pfn_mkwrite() and
> dax_unlock_mapping_entry() usages seem to disagree.
That is fair. I did document it in the changelog:
dax: Convert dax_insert_pfn_mkwrite to XArray
Add some XArray-based helper functions to replace the radix tree based
metaphors currently in use. The biggest change is that converted code
doesn't see its own lock bit; get_unlocked_entry() always returns an
entry with the lock bit clear. So we don't have to mess around loading
the current entry and clearing the lock bit; we can just store the
unlocked entry that we already have.
but I should have written that in code too:
@@ -255,6 +255,7 @@ static void dax_unlock_entry(struct xa_state *xas, void *entry)
{
void *old;
+ BUG_ON(dax_is_locked(entry));
xas_reset(xas);
xas_lock_irq(xas);
old = xas_store(xas, entry);
I've added a commit to my tree with that.
> - The multi-order use case of Xarray is a mystery to me. It seems to
> want to know the order of entries a-priori with a choice to use
> XA_STATE_ORDER() vs XA_STATE(). This falls over in
> dax_unlock_mapping_entry() and other places where the only source of
> the order of the entry is determined from dax_is_pmd_entry() i.e. the
> Xarray itself. PageHead() does not work for DAX pages because
> PageHead() is only established by the page allocator and DAX pages
> never participate in the page allocator.
I didn't know that you weren't using PageHead. That wasn't well-documented.
There's xas_set_order() for dynamically setting the order of an entry.
However, for this specific instance, we already have an entry in the tree
which is of the correct order, so just using XA_STATE is sufficient, as
xas_store() does not punch a small entry into a large entry but rather
overwrites the canonical entry with the new entry's value, leaving it
the same size, unless the new entry is specified to be larger in size.
The problem, then, is that the PMD bit isn't being set in the entry.
We could simply do a xas_load() and copy the PMD bit over. Is there
really no way to tell from the struct page whether it's in use as a
huge page? That seems like a mistake.
> - The usage of rcu_read_lock() in dax_lock_mapping_entry() is needed
> for inode lifetime synchronization, not just for walking the radix.
> That lock needs to be dropped before sleeping, and if we slept the
> inode may no longer exist.
That _really_ wasn't documented but should be easy to fix.
> - I could not see how the pattern:
> entry = xas_load(&xas);
> if (dax_is_locked(entry)) {
> entry = get_unlocked_entry(&xas);
> ...was safe given that get_unlock_entry() turns around and does
> validation that the entry is !xa_internal_entry() and !NULL.
Oh you're saying that entry might be NULL in dax_lock_mapping_entry()?
It can't be an internal entry there because that won't happen while
holding the xa_lock and looking for an order-0 entry. dax_is_locked()
will return false for a NULL entry, so I don't see a problem here.
> - The usage of internal entries in grab_mapping_entry() seems to need
> auditing. Previously we would compare the entry size against
> @size_flag, but it now if index hits a multi-order entry in
> get_unlocked_entry() afaics it could be internal and we need to convert
> it to the actual entry before aborting... at least to match the v4.19
> behavior.
If we get an internal entry in this case, we know we were looking up
a PMD entry and found a PTE entry.
