Re: [PATCH] [13/16] HWPOISON: The high level memory error handlerin the VM v3

[Wu Fengguang]

On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 10:46:53PM +0800, Nai Xia wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Wu Fengguang<fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 07:06:12PM +0800, Nai Xia wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Wu Fengguang<fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 02:25:24PM +0800, Nai Xia wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 09:45:20PM +0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 02:08:54PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > [snip]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > BTW. I don't know if you are checking for PG_writeback often enough?
> >> >> >> > You can't remove a PG_writeback page from pagecache. The normal
> >> >> >> > pattern is lock_page(page); wait_on_page_writeback(page); which I
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So pages can be in writeback without being locked? I still
> >> >> >> wasn't able to find such a case (in fact unless I'm misreading
> >> >> >> the code badly the writeback bit is only used by NFS and a few
> >> >> >> obscure cases)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes the writeback page is typically not locked. Only read IO requires
> >> >> > to be exclusive. Read IO is in fact page *writer*, while writeback IO
> >> >> > is page *reader* :-)
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorry for maybe somewhat a little bit off topic,
> >> >> I am trying to get a good understanding of PG_writeback & PG_locked ;)
> >> >>
> >> >> So you are saying PG_writeback & PG_locked are acting like a read/write lock?
> >> >> I notice wait_on_page_writeback(page) seems always called with page locked --
> >> >
> >> > No. Note that pages are not locked in wait_on_page_writeback_range().
> >>
> >> I see. This function seems mostly called Âon the sync path,
> >> it just waits for data being synchronized to disk.
> >> No writers from the pages' POV, so no lock.
> >> I missed this case, but my argument about the role of read/write lock.
> >> seems still consistent. :)
> >
> > It's more constrained. Normal read/write locks allow concurrent readers,
> > however fsync() must wait for previous IO to finish before starting
> > its own IO.
> 
> Oh, yes, this is what I called "mixed roles". One for lock, one for
> status flag, twisted together in the same path, making the read lock
> semantics totally broken.
> 
> >
> >> >
> >> >> that is the semantics of a writer waiting to get the lock while it's
> >> >> acquired by
> >> >> some reader:The caller(e.g. truncate_inode_pages_range() Âand
> >> >> invalidate_inode_pages2_range()) are the writers waiting for
> >> >> writeback readers (as you clarified ) to finish their job, right ?
> >> >
> >> > Sorry if my metaphor confused you. But they are not typical
> >> > reader/writer problems, but more about data integrities.
> >>
> >> No, you didn't :)
> >> Actually, you make me clear about the mixed roles for
> >> those bits.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Pages have to be "not under writeback" when truncated.
> >> > Otherwise data lost is possible:
> >> >
> >> > 1) create a file with one page (page A)
> >> > 2) truncate page A that is under writeback
> >> > 3) write to file, which creates page B
> >> > 4) sync file, which sends page B to disk quickly
> >> >
> >> > Now if page B reaches disk before A, the new data will be overwritten
> >> > by truncated old data, which corrupts the file.
> >>
> >> I fully understand this scenario which you had already clarified in a
> >> previous message. :)
> >>
> >> 1. someone make index1-> page A
> >> 2. Path P1 is acting as a *reader* to a cache page at index1 by
> >> Â Â setting PG_writeback on, while at the same time as a *writer* to
> >> Â Â the corresponding file blocks.
> >> 3. Another path P2 comes in and Âtruncate page A, he is the writer
> >> Â Â to the same cache page.
> >> 4. Yet another path P3 comes Âas the writer to the cache page
> >> Â Â Âmaking it points to page B: index1--> page B.
> >> 5. Path P4 comes writing back the cache page(and set PG_writeback).
> >> Â ÂHe is the reader of the cache page and the writer to the file blocks.
> >>
> >> The corrupts occur because P1 & P4 races when writing file blocks.
> >> But the _root_ of this racing is because nothing is used to serialize
> >> them on the side of writing the file blocks and above stream reading was
> >> inconsistent because of the writers(P2 & P3) to cache page at index1.
> >>
> >> Note that the "sync file" is somewhat irrelevant, even without "sync file",
> >> the racing still may exists. I know you must want to show me that this could
> >> make the corruption more easy to occur.
> >>
> >> So I think the simple logic is:
> >> 1) if you want to truncate/change the mapping from a index to a struct *page,
> >> test writeback bit because the writebacker to the file blocks is the reader
> >> of this mapping.
> >> 2) if a writebacker want to start a read of this mapping with
> >> test_set_page_writeback()
> >> or set_page_writeback(), he'd be sure this page is locked to keep out the
> >> writers to this mapping of index-->struct *page.
> >>
> >> This is really behavior of a read/write lock, right ?
> >
> > Please, that's a dangerous idea. A page can be written to at any time
> > when writeback to disk is under way. Does PG_writeback (your reader
> > lock) prevents page data writers? ÂNO.
> 
> I meant PG_writeback stops writers to index---->struct page mapping.

It's protected by the radix tree RCU locks. Period.

If you are referring to the reverse mapping: page->mapping is procted
by PG_lock. No one should make assumption that it won't change under
page writeback.

Thanks,
Fengguang

> I think I should make my statements more concise and the "reader/writer"
> less vague.
> 
> Here we care about the write/read operation for index---->struct page mapping.
> Not for read/write operation for the page content.
> 
> Anyone who wants to change this mapping  is a writer, he should take
> page lock.
> Anyone who wants to reference this mapping is a reader, writers should
> wait for him. And when this reader wants to get ref, he should wait for
> anyone one who is changing this mapping(e.g. page truncater).
> 
> When a path sets PG_writeback on a page, it need this index-->struct page
> mapping be 100% valid right? (otherwise may leads to corruption.)
> So writeback routines are readers of this index-->struct page mapping.
> (oh, well if we can put the other role of PG_writeback aside)
> 
> Ok,Ok, since PG_locked does mean much more than just protecting
> the per-page mapping which makes the lock abstraction even less clear.
> so indeed, forget about it.
> 
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fengguang
> >
> >> wait_on_page_writeback_range() looks different only because "sync"
> >> operates on "struct page", it's not sensitive to index-->struct *page mapping.
> >> It does care about if pages returned by pagevec_lookup_tag() are
> >> still maintains the mapping when wait_on_page_writeback(page).
> >> Here, PG_writeback is only a status flag for "struct page" not a lock bit for
> >> index->struct *page mapping.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> So do you think the idea is sane to group the two bits together
> >> >> to form a real read/write lock, which does not care about the _number_
> >> >> of readers ?
> >> >
> >> > We don't care number of readers here. So please forget about it.
> >> Yeah, I meant number of readers is not important.
> >>
> >> I still hold that these two bits in some way act like a _sparse_
> >> read/write lock.
> >> But I am going to drop the idea of making them a pure lock, since PG_writeback
> >> does has other meaning -- the page is being writing back: for sync
> >> path, it's only
> >> a status flag.
> >> Making a pure read/write lock definitely will lose that or at least distort it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Hoping I've made my words understandable, correct me if wrong, and
> >> many thanks for your time and patience. :-)
> >>
> >>
> >> Nai Xia
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Fengguang
> >> >
> >> >> > The writeback bit is _widely_ used. Âtest_set_page_writeback() is
> >> >> > directly used by NFS/AFS etc. But its main user is in fact
> >> >> > set_page_writeback(), which is called in 26 places.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > think would be safest
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Okay. I'll just add it after the page lock.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > (then you never have to bother with the writeback bit again)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Until Fengguang does something fancy with it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes I'm going to do it without wait_on_page_writeback().
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The reason truncate_inode_pages_range() has to wait on writeback page
> >> >> > is to ensure data integrity. Otherwise if there comes two events:
> >> >> > Â Â Â Âtruncate page A at offset X
> >> >> > Â Â Â Âpopulate page B at offset X
> >> >> > If A and B are all writeback pages, then B can hit disk first and then
> >> >> > be overwritten by A. Which corrupts the data at offset X from user's POV.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But for hwpoison, there are no such worries. If A is poisoned, we do
> >> >> > our best to isolate it as well as intercepting its IO. If the interception
> >> >> > fails, it will trigger another machine check before hitting the disk.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > After all, poisoned A means the data at offset X is already corrupted.
> >> >> > It doesn't matter if there comes another B page.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> > Fengguang
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> >> >> > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> > More majordomo info at Âhttp://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >> >> > Please read the FAQ at Âhttp://www.tux.org/lkml/
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/