On Sun, 3 May 2020, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 09:43:41AM +0100, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> > Here's what I got:
> >
> > [ 221.277260] page:ffffec4bbd639880 refcount:1 mapcount:0 mapping:0000000000000000 index:0xd9
> > [ 221.277265] flags: 0x17ffffc0000097(locked|waiters|referenced|uptodate|lru)
> > [ 221.277269] raw: 0017ffffc0000097 ffffec4bbd62f048 ffffec4bbd619308 0000000000000000
> > [ 221.277271] raw: 00000000000000d9 0000000000000000 00000001ffffffff ffff9aec11beb000
> > [ 221.277272] page dumped because: fuse: trying to steal weird page
> > [ 221.277273] page->mem_cgroup:ffff9aec11beb000
>
> Great! Here's the condition:
>
> if (page_mapcount(page) ||
> page->mapping != NULL ||
> page_count(page) != 1 ||
> (page->flags & PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP &
> ~(1 << PG_locked |
> 1 << PG_referenced |
> 1 << PG_uptodate |
> 1 << PG_lru |
> 1 << PG_active |
> 1 << PG_reclaim))) {
>
> mapcount is 0, mapping is NULL, refcount is 1, so that's all fine.
> flags has 'waiters' set, which is not in the allowed list. I don't
> know the internals of FUSE, so I don't know why that is.
That list of PG_flags dates back to 2010: which 2016's 62906027091f
("mm: add PageWaiters indicating tasks are waiting for a page bit")
ought to have updated. Though it's understandable that it did not:
surprising to find a list of PG_flags outside of mm/ and fs/proc/.
Just add PG_waiters to the list and the issue should go away.
>
> Also, page_count() is unstable.
Agreed: fine to back out if page_count() is high,
but not good to issue a worrying warning about it.
> Unless there has been an RCU grace period
> between when the page was freed and now, a speculative reference may exist
> from the page cache. So I would say this is a bad thing to check for.
>
> Thanks for the swift provision of the debugging data!
