Message ID | 20240226094936.2677493-5-kernel@pankajraghav.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | enable bs > ps in XFS | expand |
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:49:27AM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote: > Add some additional VM_BUG_ON() in page_cache_delete[batch] and > __filemap_add_folio to catch errors where we delete or add folios that > has order less than min_order. I don't understand why we need these checks in the deletion path. The add path, yes, absolutely. But the delete path? > @@ -896,6 +900,8 @@ noinline int __filemap_add_folio(struct address_space *mapping, > } > } > > + VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_order(folio) < mapping_min_folio_order(mapping), > + folio); But I don't understand why you put it here, while we're holding the xa_lock. That seems designed to cause maximum disruption. Why not put it at the beginning of the function with all the other VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO? > @@ -1847,6 +1853,9 @@ struct folio *__filemap_get_folio(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t index, > fgf_t fgp_flags, gfp_t gfp) > { > struct folio *folio; > + unsigned int min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(mapping); > + > + index = mapping_align_start_index(mapping, index); I would not do this here. > repeat: > folio = filemap_get_entry(mapping, index); > @@ -1886,7 +1895,7 @@ struct folio *__filemap_get_folio(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t index, > folio_wait_stable(folio); > no_page: > if (!folio && (fgp_flags & FGP_CREAT)) { > - unsigned order = FGF_GET_ORDER(fgp_flags); > + unsigned int order = max(min_order, FGF_GET_ORDER(fgp_flags)); > int err; Put it here instead. > if ((fgp_flags & FGP_WRITE) && mapping_can_writeback(mapping)) > @@ -1912,8 +1921,13 @@ struct folio *__filemap_get_folio(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t index, > gfp_t alloc_gfp = gfp; > > err = -ENOMEM; > + if (order < min_order) > + order = min_order; > if (order > 0) > alloc_gfp |= __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN; > + > + VM_BUG_ON(index & ((1UL << order) - 1)); Then you don't need this BUG_ON because it's obvious you just did it. And the one in filemap_add_folio() would catch it anyway.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 02:47:33PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:49:27AM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote: > > Add some additional VM_BUG_ON() in page_cache_delete[batch] and > > __filemap_add_folio to catch errors where we delete or add folios that > > has order less than min_order. > > I don't understand why we need these checks in the deletion path. The > add path, yes, absolutely. But the delete path? I think we initially added it to check if some split happened which might mess up the page cache with min order support. But I think it is not super critical anymore because of the changes in the split_folio path. I will remove the checks. > > > @@ -896,6 +900,8 @@ noinline int __filemap_add_folio(struct address_space *mapping, > > } > > } > > > > + VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_order(folio) < mapping_min_folio_order(mapping), > > + folio); > > But I don't understand why you put it here, while we're holding the > xa_lock. That seems designed to cause maximum disruption. Why not put > it at the beginning of the function with all the other VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO? Yeah. That makes sense as the folio itself is not changing. > > > @@ -1847,6 +1853,9 @@ struct folio *__filemap_get_folio(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t index, > > fgf_t fgp_flags, gfp_t gfp) > > { > > struct folio *folio; > > + unsigned int min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(mapping); > > + > > + index = mapping_align_start_index(mapping, index); > > I would not do this here. > > > repeat: > > folio = filemap_get_entry(mapping, index); > > @@ -1886,7 +1895,7 @@ struct folio *__filemap_get_folio(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t index, > > folio_wait_stable(folio); > > no_page: > > if (!folio && (fgp_flags & FGP_CREAT)) { > > - unsigned order = FGF_GET_ORDER(fgp_flags); > > + unsigned int order = max(min_order, FGF_GET_ORDER(fgp_flags)); > > int err; > > Put it here instead. > > > if ((fgp_flags & FGP_WRITE) && mapping_can_writeback(mapping)) > > @@ -1912,8 +1921,13 @@ struct folio *__filemap_get_folio(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t index, > > gfp_t alloc_gfp = gfp; > > > > err = -ENOMEM; > > + if (order < min_order) > > + order = min_order; > > if (order > 0) > > alloc_gfp |= __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN; > > + > > + VM_BUG_ON(index & ((1UL << order) - 1)); > > Then you don't need this BUG_ON because it's obvious you just did it. > And the one in filemap_add_folio() would catch it anyway. I agree. I will change it in the next revision.
diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c index bdf4f65f597c..4b144479c4cb 100644 --- a/mm/filemap.c +++ b/mm/filemap.c @@ -135,6 +135,8 @@ static void page_cache_delete(struct address_space *mapping, xas_set_order(&xas, folio->index, folio_order(folio)); nr = folio_nr_pages(folio); + VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_order(folio) < mapping_min_folio_order(mapping), + folio); VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_locked(folio), folio); xas_store(&xas, shadow); @@ -305,6 +307,8 @@ static void page_cache_delete_batch(struct address_space *mapping, WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio_test_locked(folio)); + VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_order(folio) < mapping_min_folio_order(mapping), + folio); folio->mapping = NULL; /* Leave folio->index set: truncation lookup relies on it */ @@ -896,6 +900,8 @@ noinline int __filemap_add_folio(struct address_space *mapping, } } + VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_order(folio) < mapping_min_folio_order(mapping), + folio); xas_store(&xas, folio); if (xas_error(&xas)) goto unlock; @@ -1847,6 +1853,9 @@ struct folio *__filemap_get_folio(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t index, fgf_t fgp_flags, gfp_t gfp) { struct folio *folio; + unsigned int min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(mapping); + + index = mapping_align_start_index(mapping, index); repeat: folio = filemap_get_entry(mapping, index); @@ -1886,7 +1895,7 @@ struct folio *__filemap_get_folio(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t index, folio_wait_stable(folio); no_page: if (!folio && (fgp_flags & FGP_CREAT)) { - unsigned order = FGF_GET_ORDER(fgp_flags); + unsigned int order = max(min_order, FGF_GET_ORDER(fgp_flags)); int err; if ((fgp_flags & FGP_WRITE) && mapping_can_writeback(mapping)) @@ -1912,8 +1921,13 @@ struct folio *__filemap_get_folio(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t index, gfp_t alloc_gfp = gfp; err = -ENOMEM; + if (order < min_order) + order = min_order; if (order > 0) alloc_gfp |= __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN; + + VM_BUG_ON(index & ((1UL << order) - 1)); + folio = filemap_alloc_folio(alloc_gfp, order); if (!folio) continue; @@ -1927,7 +1941,7 @@ struct folio *__filemap_get_folio(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t index, break; folio_put(folio); folio = NULL; - } while (order-- > 0); + } while (order-- > min_order); if (err == -EEXIST) goto repeat; @@ -2422,7 +2436,8 @@ static int filemap_create_folio(struct file *file, struct folio *folio; int error; - folio = filemap_alloc_folio(mapping_gfp_mask(mapping), 0); + folio = filemap_alloc_folio(mapping_gfp_mask(mapping), + mapping_min_folio_order(mapping)); if (!folio) return -ENOMEM; @@ -3666,7 +3681,8 @@ static struct folio *do_read_cache_folio(struct address_space *mapping, repeat: folio = filemap_get_folio(mapping, index); if (IS_ERR(folio)) { - folio = filemap_alloc_folio(gfp, 0); + folio = filemap_alloc_folio(gfp, + mapping_min_folio_order(mapping)); if (!folio) return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); err = filemap_add_folio(mapping, folio, index, gfp);