Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 08:42:15AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: >> Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 12:29:55PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: >> >> On Tue 02-01-18 10:21:03, Mel Gorman wrote: >> >> > On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 10:36:53AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: >> >> > > > code path. It appears that similar situation is possible for them too. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > The file cache pages will be delete from file cache address_space before >> >> > > > address_space (embedded in inode) is freed. But they will be deleted >> >> > > > from LRU list only when its refcount dropped to zero, please take a look >> >> > > > at put_page() and release_pages(). While address_space will be freed >> >> > > > after putting reference to all file cache pages. If someone holds a >> >> > > > reference to a file cache page for quite long time, it is possible for a >> >> > > > file cache page to be in LRU list after the inode/address_space is >> >> > > > freed. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > And I found inode/address_space is freed witch call_rcu(). I don't know >> >> > > > whether this is related to page_mapping(). >> >> > > > >> >> > > > This is just my understanding. >> >> > > >> >> > > Hmm, it smells like a bug of __isolate_lru_page. >> >> > > >> >> > > Ccing Mel: >> >> > > >> >> > > What locks protects address_space destroying when race happens between >> >> > > inode trauncation and __isolate_lru_page? >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > I'm just back online and have a lot of catching up to do so this is a rushed >> >> > answer and I didn't read the background of this. However the question is >> >> > somewhat ambiguous and the scope is broad as I'm not sure which race you >> >> > refer to. For file cache pages, I wouldnt' expect the address_space to be >> >> > destroyed specifically as long as the inode exists which is the structure >> >> > containing the address_space in this case. A page on the LRU being isolated >> >> > in __isolate_lru_page will have an elevated reference count which will >> >> > pin the inode until remove_mapping is called which holds the page lock >> >> > while inode truncation looking at a page for truncation also only checks >> >> > page_mapping under the page lock. Very broadly speaking, pages avoid being >> >> > added back to an inode being freed by checking the I_FREEING state. >> >> >> >> So I'm wondering what prevents the following: >> >> >> >> CPU1 CPU2 >> >> >> >> truncate(inode) __isolate_lru_page() >> >> ... >> >> truncate_inode_page(mapping, page); >> >> delete_from_page_cache(page) >> >> spin_lock_irqsave(&mapping->tree_lock, flags); >> >> __delete_from_page_cache(page, NULL) >> >> page_cache_tree_delete(..) >> >> ... mapping = page_mapping(page); >> >> page->mapping = NULL; >> >> ... >> >> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mapping->tree_lock, flags); >> >> page_cache_free_page(mapping, page) >> >> put_page(page) >> >> if (put_page_testzero(page)) -> false >> >> - inode now has no pages and can be freed including embedded address_space >> >> >> >> if (mapping && !mapping->a_ops->migratepage) >> >> - we've dereferenced mapping which is potentially already free. >> >> >> > >> > Hmm, possible if unlikely. >> > >> > Before delete_from_page_cache, we called truncate_cleanup_page so the >> > page is likely to be !PageDirty or PageWriteback which gets skipped by >> > the only caller that checks the mappping in __isolate_lru_page. The race >> > is tiny but it does exist. One way of closing it is to check the mapping >> > under the page lock which will prevent races with truncation. The >> > overhead is minimal as the calling context (compaction) is quite a heavy >> > operation anyway. >> > >> >> I think another possible fix is to use call_rcu_sched() to free inode >> (and address_space). Because __isolate_lru_page() will be called with >> LRU spinlock held and IRQ disabled, call_rcu_sched() will wait >> LRU spin_unlock and IRQ enabled. >> > > Maybe, but in this particular case, I would prefer to go with something > more conventional unless there is strong evidence that it's an improvement > (which I doubt in this case given the cost of migration overall and the > corner case of migrating a dirty page). So you like page_lock() more than RCU? Is there any problem of RCU? The object to be protected isn't clear? Another way to fix this with RCU is to replace trylock_page()/unlock_page() with rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() in your fix. JFYI, please keep your fix if you think that is more appropriate. Best Regards, Huang, Ying -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
