On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 07:23:33AM -0600, William Kucharski wrote:
>
>
> > On Oct 21, 2020, at 6:49 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 08:30:18PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> >> Today's linux-next starts to trigger this wondering if anyone has any clue.
> >
> > I've seen that occasionally too. I changed that BUG_ON to VM_BUG_ON_PAGE
> > to try to get a clue about it. Good to know it's not the THP patches
> > since they aren't in linux-next.
> >
> > I don't understand how it can happen. We have the page locked, and then we do:
> >
> > if (PageWriteback(page)) {
> > if (wbc->sync_mode != WB_SYNC_NONE)
> > wait_on_page_writeback(page);
> > else
> > goto continue_unlock;
> > }
> >
> > VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageWriteback(page), page);
> >
> > Nobody should be able to put this page under writeback while we have it
> > locked ... right? The page can be redirtied by the code that's supposed
> > to be writing it back, but I don't see how anyone can make PageWriteback
> > true while we're holding the page lock.
>
> Looking at __test_set_page_writeback(), I see that it (and most other
> callers to lock_page_memcg()) do the following:
lock_page_memcg() is, unfortunately, completely unrelated to lock_page().
I believe all callers of __test_set_page_writeback() have the page lock
held already, but I'm going to put in an assert to that effect.
