On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 09:07:52 +0000 Matthew Wilcox
> On Mon, Jan 01, 2024 at 09:55:04AM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 13:07:03 +0000 Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > I don't think this can happen. Look at the call trace;
> > > block_dirty_folio() is called from unmap_page_range(). That means the
> > > page is in the page tables. We unmap the pages in a folio from the
> > > page tables before we set folio->mapping to NULL. Look at
> > > invalidate_inode_pages2_range() for example:
> > >
> > > unmap_mapping_pages(mapping, indices[i],
> > > (1 + end - indices[i]), false);
> > > folio_lock(folio);
> > > folio_wait_writeback(folio);
> > > if (folio_mapped(folio))
> > > unmap_mapping_folio(folio);
> > > BUG_ON(folio_mapped(folio));
> > > if (!invalidate_complete_folio2(mapping, folio))
> > >
> > What is missed here is the same check [1] in invalidate_inode_pages2_range(),
> > so I built no wheel.
> >
> > folio_lock(folio);
> > if (unlikely(folio->mapping != mapping)) {
> > folio_unlock(folio);
> > continue;
> > }
> >
> > [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/mm/truncate.c#n658
>
> That's entirely different. That's checking in the truncate path whether
> somebody else already truncated this page. What I was showing was why
> a page found through a page table walk cannot have been truncated (which
> is actually quite interesting, because it's the page table lock that
> prevents the race).
>
Feel free to shed light on how ptl protects folio->mapping.
