On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:58:58PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 05:02:20AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:04:00AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 08:29:45AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 07:48:16AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 10:24:46AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 10:54:14AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > shrink_inactive_list
> > > shrink_list
> > > buffer_heads_over_limit
> > > try_to_release_page
> > > xfs_vm_releasepage()
> > > xfs_count_page_state <<< finds delalloc/unwritten buffer
> > > WARN_ON(delalloc)
> > >
> >
> > The xfs_vm_releasepage() code looks like this:
> >
> > ...
> > xfs_count_page_state(page, &delalloc, &unwritten);
> >
> > if (delalloc) {
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(!PageDirty(page));
> > return 0;
> > }
> > ...
> >
> > So if we get here with a dirty page over a delalloc extent, for example,
> > how exactly does that trigger a spurious warning? AFAICT the warning
> > will not trigger because the page is dirty. We decide not to release the
> > page precisely because it has delalloc buffers.
>
> And, you know, it's not until you pasted it here that I saw the
> "!" in that WARN_ON_ONCE.
>
> I've looked at repeatedly over many weeks, and not *once* have I
> registered that it's a "NOT page dirty" warning.
>
Heh, been there done that. ;)
> So we can ignore the spurious warning issue. You're right, that
> clearly doesn't happen.
>
Ok.
> But, realistically, we shouldn't be relying on bufferhead state to
> determine what the correct action to take is. We can still have
> dirty pages that do not have delalloc or unwritten extents on them
> that we should not be attempting to free. The current code happily
> hands them to try_to_free_buffers() rather than says "no, we don't
> free dirty pages".
>
Which is still fine because try_to_free_buffers() checks for dirty
buffers before attempting to clean the page.
> i.e. if xfs_invalidatepage() is trashing the dirty state on the
> buffers, then we should also be trashing the dirty state on the page
> so they are clean and coherent when passed to xfs_vm_releasepage.
> That leaves us with the simple rule in xfs_vm_releasepage():
>
> Never release a dirty page because they always contain valid
> data that needs to be written back first.
>
> That's what I'm trying to do - move the control decisions to page
> level, rather than having them split and, at times, be incoherent
> at bufferhead level. We're wanting to get rid of bufferheads so we
> should be making decisions in this code based on page state, not
> the bufferhead state...
>
That seems reasonable to me. I'm not against this patch if it simplifies
our internal logic for dealing with pages, though I'm still kind of
wondering why to not do this by simply clearing the page earlier in
truncate_complete_page().
That said, I suppose there's an argument to be made to do that locally
and perhaps try to push it up the chain once the approach has some soak
time. Could you at least rewrite the commit log to reflect that this is
not a regression and is more of a refactoring/cleanup to effectively
elevate page state over bh state (a code comment to that effect probably
couldn't hurt either)? Thanks.
Brian
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
