On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 07:40:44PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I tried this code on XFS, and it is working as expected (I am getting
> > xxxx).
>
> XFS doesn't try to use mapping_set_release_always().
Thanks David for digging deep. It is indeed a bug in this patchset
(PATCH 1). I think I overlooked the way we MASK the folio order bits
when we changed it sometime back.
But still I don't know why AS_RELEASE_ALWAYS is being cleared because it
is in BIT 6, and existing bug should not affect BIT 6.
The following triggers an ASSERT failure.
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c
index 0fcf235e5023..35961d73d54a 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c
@@ -88,9 +88,13 @@ xfs_inode_alloc(
/* VFS doesn't initialise i_mode! */
VFS_I(ip)->i_mode = 0;
+ mapping_set_unevictable(VFS_I(ip)->i_mapping);
mapping_set_folio_min_order(VFS_I(ip)->i_mapping,
M_IGEO(mp)->min_folio_order);
+ ASSERT(mapping_unevictable(VFS_I(ip)->i_mapping) == 1);
+
+ mapping_clear_unevictable(VFS_I(ip)->i_mapping);
XFS_STATS_INC(mp, vn_active);
ASSERT(atomic_read(&ip->i_pincount) == 0);
ASSERT(ip->i_ino == 0);
The patch that fixes this is:
diff --git a/include/linux/pagemap.h b/include/linux/pagemap.h
index 61a7649d86e5..5e245b8dcfd6 100644
--- a/include/linux/pagemap.h
+++ b/include/linux/pagemap.h
@@ -217,6 +217,7 @@ enum mapping_flags {
#define AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MASK ((1u << AS_FOLIO_ORDER_BITS) - 1)
#define AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MIN_MASK (AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MASK << AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MIN)
#define AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MAX_MASK (AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MASK << AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MAX)
+#define AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MIN_MAX_MASK (AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MIN_MASK | AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MAX_MASK)
/**
* mapping_set_error - record a writeback error in the address_space
@@ -418,7 +419,7 @@ static inline void mapping_set_folio_order_range(struct address_space *mapping,
if (max < min)
max = min;
- mapping->flags = (mapping->flags & ~AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MASK) |
+ mapping->flags = (mapping->flags & ~AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MIN_MAX_MASK) |
(min << AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MIN) | (max << AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MAX);
}
Could you try this patch and see if it fixes it by any chance?
--
Pankaj
