Am 17.03.2016 um 10:57 schrieb Vlastimil Babka:
> +CC Hugh, Mel
>
> On 03/16/2016 11:55 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com>
>>
>> When using CMA during page migrations UBIFS might get confused
>
> It shouldn't be CMA specific, the same code runs from compaction, autonuma
> balancing...
>
>> and the following assert triggers:
>> UBIFS assert failed in ubifs_set_page_dirty at 1451 (pid 436)
>>
>> UBIFS is using PagePrivate() which can have different meanings across
>> filesystems. Therefore the generic page migration code cannot handle this
>> case correctly.
>> We have to implement our own migration function which basically does a
>> plain copy but also duplicates the page private flag.
>
> Lack of PagePrivate() migration is surely a bug, but at a glance of how UBIFS
> uses the flag, it's more about accounting, it shouldn't prevent a page from
> being marked PageDirty()?
> I suspect your initial bug (which is IIUC the fact that there's a dirty pte,
> but PageDirty(page) is false) comes from the generic fallback_migrate_page()
> which does:
>
> if (PageDirty(page)) {
> /* Only writeback pages in full synchronous migration */
> if (mode != MIGRATE_SYNC)
> return -EBUSY;
> return writeout(mapping, page);
> }
>
> And writeout() seems to Clear PageDirty() through clear_page_dirty_for_io()
> but I'm not so sure about the pte (or pte's in all rmaps). But this comment
> in the latter function:
>
> * Yes, Virginia, this is indeed insane.
>
> scared me enough to not investigate further. Hopefully the people I CC'd
> understand more about page migration than me. I'm just an user :)
>
> In any case, this patch would solve both lack of PageDirty() transfer, and
> avoid the path leading from fallback_migrate_page() to writeout(). But I'm
> not confident enough here to
> ack it.
Hugh? Mel? Anyone? :-)
It is still not clear to me whether this needs fixing in MM or UBIFS.
Thanks,
//richard
