From patchwork Mon Dec 27 03:22:44 2021 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Zhihao Cheng X-Patchwork-Id: 1573293 X-Patchwork-Delegate: richard@nod.at Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: bilbo.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=bombadil.20210309 header.b=OxsSeGBA; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=lists.infradead.org (client-ip=2607:7c80:54:e::133; helo=bombadil.infradead.org; envelope-from=linux-mtd-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@lists.infradead.org; receiver=) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:e::133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4JMjdC362Zz9sXM for ; Mon, 27 Dec 2021 14:21:51 +1100 (AEDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To: Message-ID:Date:Subject:CC:To:From:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=J935Cm1l087f3ezW7xLAk63OEyfiCt4g8ucuVl2MHC4=; b=OxsSeGBAPI8Vcb /Gf4nDkSayT5fTbeKq08BPagbIfoTTPLz99rztmZzsZaQvLL0LsnRdUEIy5Ge2+5LB87D4kMlCoMo wng8FZA+pj84MDsmjDHQ5WBaR2bHmxTX5ot9C6kPmUOcPwa2vqem+BR4uogxXc6XbhUh6Gfprjf6f AYH4t8VbNRhprm9OeJTB9BWgt2HgPfK4jN1vXbosMHVBL8b+IG6naLUGIwLbctwIqaGzJf6+t8n+O kWJsCTauAzzgD3zAeui/2JAK0pgJEDoK3RN0d3KMv1T4K39jratWfOpxJRThKenFGv/Xtc+8UcDBN afpGFMCLgoMdlFhhB13Q==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1n1gZN-00G64K-IQ; Mon, 27 Dec 2021 03:21:05 +0000 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.187]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1n1gQn-00G415-D7 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 27 Dec 2021 03:12:19 +0000 Received: from kwepemi500008.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.57]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4JMjLJ4HzgzZdpD; Mon, 27 Dec 2021 11:08:56 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemm600013.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.68) by kwepemi500008.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.139) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.20; Mon, 27 Dec 2021 11:12:11 +0800 Received: from huawei.com (10.175.127.227) by kwepemm600013.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.68) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.20; Mon, 27 Dec 2021 11:12:10 +0800 From: Zhihao Cheng To: , , , , , CC: , Subject: [PATCH v6 13/15] ubifs: ubifs_writepage: Mark page dirty after writing inode failed Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 11:22:44 +0800 Message-ID: <20211227032246.2886878-14-chengzhihao1@huawei.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.31.1 In-Reply-To: <20211227032246.2886878-1-chengzhihao1@huawei.com> References: <20211227032246.2886878-1-chengzhihao1@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [10.175.127.227] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.183) To kwepemm600013.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.68) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20211226_191213_797541_DEFF1654 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 12.59 ) X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "bombadil.infradead.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: There are two states for ubifs writing pages: 1. Dirty, Private 2. Not Dirty, Not Private There is a third possibility which maybe related to [1] that page is private but not dirty caused by following process: Content analysis details: (-2.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [45.249.212.187 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust [45.249.212.187 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders X-BeenThere: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-mtd" Errors-To: linux-mtd-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@lists.infradead.org There are two states for ubifs writing pages: 1. Dirty, Private 2. Not Dirty, Not Private There is a third possibility which maybe related to [1] that page is private but not dirty caused by following process: PA lock(page) ubifs_write_end attach_page_private // set Private __set_page_dirty_nobuffers // set Dirty unlock(page) write_cache_pages lock(page) clear_page_dirty_for_io(page) // clear Dirty ubifs_writepage write_inode // fail, goto out, following codes are not executed // do_writepage // set_page_writeback // set Writeback // detach_page_private // clear Private // end_page_writeback // clear Writeback out: unlock(page) // Private, Not Dirty PB ksys_fadvise64_64 generic_fadvise invalidate_inode_page // page is neither Dirty nor Writeback invalidate_complete_page // page_has_private is true try_to_release_page ubifs_releasepage ubifs_assert(c, 0) !!! Then we may get following assertion failed: UBIFS error (ubi0:0 pid 1492): ubifs_assert_failed [ubifs]: UBIFS assert failed: 0, in fs/ubifs/file.c:1499 UBIFS warning (ubi0:0 pid 1492): ubifs_ro_mode [ubifs]: switched to read-only mode, error -22 CPU: 2 PID: 1492 Comm: aa Not tainted 5.16.0-rc2-00012-g7bb767dee0ba-dirty Call Trace: dump_stack+0x13/0x1b ubifs_ro_mode+0x54/0x60 [ubifs] ubifs_assert_failed+0x4b/0x80 [ubifs] ubifs_releasepage+0x7e/0x1e0 [ubifs] try_to_release_page+0x57/0xe0 invalidate_inode_page+0xfb/0x130 invalidate_mapping_pagevec+0x12/0x20 generic_fadvise+0x303/0x3c0 vfs_fadvise+0x35/0x40 ksys_fadvise64_64+0x4c/0xb0 Jump [2] to find a reproducer. [1] https://linux-mtd.infradead.narkive.com/NQoBeT1u/patch-rfc-ubifs-fix-assert-failed-in-ubifs-set-page-dirty [2] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215357 Fixes: 1e51764a3c2ac0 ("UBIFS: add new flash file system") Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng --- fs/ubifs/file.c | 12 +++++++++--- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/ubifs/file.c b/fs/ubifs/file.c index 6b45a037a047..7cc2abcb70ae 100644 --- a/fs/ubifs/file.c +++ b/fs/ubifs/file.c @@ -1031,7 +1031,7 @@ static int ubifs_writepage(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc) if (page->index >= synced_i_size >> PAGE_SHIFT) { err = inode->i_sb->s_op->write_inode(inode, NULL); if (err) - goto out_unlock; + goto out_redirty; /* * The inode has been written, but the write-buffer has * not been synchronized, so in case of an unclean @@ -1059,11 +1059,17 @@ static int ubifs_writepage(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc) if (i_size > synced_i_size) { err = inode->i_sb->s_op->write_inode(inode, NULL); if (err) - goto out_unlock; + goto out_redirty; } return do_writepage(page, len); - +out_redirty: + /* + * redirty_page_for_writepage() won't call ubifs_dirty_inode() because + * it passes I_DIRTY_PAGES flag while calling __mark_inode_dirty(), so + * there is no need to do space budget for dirty inode. + */ + redirty_page_for_writepage(wbc, page); out_unlock: unlock_page(page); return err;