Hi Joel, On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Nick, > While visiting some issues in ocfs2_page_mkwrite(), I realized > that we're returning 0 to mean "Please try again Mr VM", but the caller 0 has always meant minor fault, which means the filesystem satisfied the request without doing IO. In the change to bit mask return values, I kept it compatible by having major fault be presence of a bit, and minor fault indicate absence. > of page_mkwrite() now expects VM_FAULT_NOPAGE. This is all due to > 56a76f [fs: fix page_mkwrite error cases in core code and btrfs]. NOPAGE basically means no further action on part of the VM is required. It was used to consolidate pfn based fault handler with page based fault handler. And then, later, it was further used in this case to allow the filesystem to have the VM try again in rare / difficult to handle error cases exactly like truncate races. > In the comment for 56a76f, you state that btrfs is the example > but all other filesystems need to be fixed...yet ocfs2, ext4, and gfs2 > continue to return 0 or VM_FAULT_SIGBUS. > I guess this continues to work because we return the page > unlocked (thus triggering the "if (unlikely(!(tmp & VM_FAULT_LOCKED)))" > logic). Was this expected to continue to work, or do you consider these > filesystems broken until they are updated with the new return codes? No it was all back compatible. That is to say, the ones that return SIGBUS in these cases were already broken, but the patch didn't break them further. Actaully it closed up races a bit, if I recall. But yes they should have all been converted to the new calling convention and returning with page locked. If the filesystem returns 0, it means minor fault, and the VM will actually install the page (unless the hack to check page->mapping catches it). > Back to the ocfs2 issue. Am I correctly reading the current > code that we can safely throw away the page passed in to page_mkwrite() > if a pagecache flush has dropped it? Well you just return NOPAGE and the VM throws the page away. > Currently, we presume that the > page passed in must be the one we make writable. We make a quick check > of page->mapping == inode->i_mapping, returning 0 (for "try again") > immediately if that's false. But once we get into the meat of our > locking and finally lock the page for good, we assume mapping==i_mapping > still holds. That obviously breaks when the pagecache gets truncated. > At this late stage, we -EINVAL (clearly wrong). The better way to do this would be to just return VM_FAULT_NOPAGE in any case you need the VM to retry the fault. When you reach the business end of your handler, you want to hold the page locked, after you verify it is correct, and return that to the fault handler. > It looks hard to lock the page for good high up at our first > check of the mapping. Wengang has proposed to simply ignore the page > passed into page_mkwrite() and just find_or_create_page() the sucker at > the place we're ready to consider it stable. As I see it, the two > places that call page_mkwrite() are going to revalidate the pte anyway, > and they'll find the newly created page if find_or_create_page() gets a > different. Is that safe behavior? I can't see the point. If you can find_or_create_page, then you can lock_page, by definition. Then check the mapping and VM_FAULT_SIGBUS if it is wrong. Messing with the wrong page will only see the result ignored by the VM, and push an incorrect page through parts of your fault handler, which is potentially confusing at best, I would have thought. Thanks, Nick -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
