Re: [PATCH resend] ramdisk: fix zeroed ramdisk pages on memory pressure

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:

> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> writes:
>
>> On Monday 15 October 2007 19:05, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> Am Montag, 15. Oktober 2007 schrieb Nick Piggin:
>>> > On Monday 15 October 2007 18:28, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> > > Andrew, this is a resend of a bugfix patch. Ramdisk seems a bit
>>> > > unmaintained, so decided to sent the patch to you :-).
>>> > > I have CCed Ted, who did work on the code in the 90s. I found no
>>> > > current email address of Chad Page.
>>> >
>>> > This really needs to be fixed...
>>>
>>> I obviously agree ;-)
>>> We have seen this problem happen several times.
>>>
>>> > I can't make up my mind between the approaches to fixing it.
>>> >
>>> > On one hand, I would actually prefer to really mark the buffers
>>> > dirty (as in: Eric's fix for this problem[*]) than this patch,
>>> > and this seems a bit like a bandaid...
>>>
>>> I have never seen these patches, so I cannot comment on them.
>>
>>> > On the other hand, the wound being covered by the bandaid is
>>> > actually the code in the buffer layer that does this latent
>>> > "cleaning" of the page because it sadly doesn't really keep
>>> > track of the pagecache state. But it *still* feels like we
>>> > should be marking the rd page's buffers dirty which should
>>> > avoid this problem anyway.
>>>
>>> Yes, that would solve the problem as well. As long as we fix
>>> the problem, I am happy. On the other hand, do you see any
>>> obvious problem with this "bandaid"?
>>
>> I don't think so -- in fact, it could be the best candidate for
>> a minimal fix for stable kernels (anyone disagree? if not, maybe
>> you could also send this to the stable maintainers?).
>
> A minor one.  It still leaves us with buffer heads out of sync with
> struct page.
>
>> But I do want to have this fixed in a "nice" way. eg. I'd like
>> it to mark the buffers dirty because that actually results in
>> more reuse of generic kernel code, and also should make rd
>> behave more naturally (I like using it to test filesystems
>> because it can expose a lot more concurrency than something like
>> loop on tmpfs). It should also be possible to actually have
>> rd's buffer heads get reclaimed as well, preferably while
>> exercising the common buffer paths and without writing much new
>> code.
>
> We actually allow that currently for clean pages which is part
> of what makes this tricky.
>
>> All of that is secondary to fixing the data corruption problem
>> of course! But the fact that those alternate patches do exist now
>> means I want to just bring them into the discussion again before
>> merging one or the other.
>
> The core of my original fix was to modify init_page_buffers so that
> when we added buffers to a dirty page the buffers became dirty.
>
> Modifying the generic code is a bit spooky because it requires us
> to audit the kernel to make certain nothing else depends on the
> current behavior in odd ways.  Although since init_page_buffers
> is only called when we are adding buffer heads to an existing
> page I still think that was the proper change.
>
> The historical reason for my patches not getting merged the first
> time is there was some weird issue with reiserfs ramdisks and so
> Andrew disabled the code, and then dropped it when he had discovered
> he had the patch disabled for several releases.  I don't think
> any causal relationship was ever established.  But I didn't
> hear enough about the reiserfs ramdisk issue, to make a guess
> what was going on.
>
> So it looks to me like the important invariant we need to maintain
> is that when a ramdisk page is dirty it always has buffers and those
> buffers are dirty as well.  With a little care we can ensure this
> happens with just modifications to rd.c

Hah.  I looked over my last round of patches again and I have been able
to verify by review the parts I was a little iffy about and I have
found where in my cleanups I had missed a layering violation in the
ramdisk code, and removed some needed code.  Which probably accounts
for the reiserfs ramdisk problems.  Updated patches in a minute.

Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/