Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 22 Oct 2020 17:46:24 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     William Kucharski <william.kucharski@oracle.com>
Cc:     Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
        linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at mm/page-writeback.c:2241 [
 BUG_ON(PageWriteback(page); ]
Message-ID: <20201022164624.GW20115@casper.infradead.org>
References: <645a3f332f37e09057c10bc32f4f298ce56049bb.camel@lca.pw>
 <20201022004906.GQ20115@casper.infradead.org>
 <361D9B8E-CE8F-4BA0-8076-8384C2B7E860@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <361D9B8E-CE8F-4BA0-8076-8384C2B7E860@oracle.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 07:23:33AM -0600, William Kucharski wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Oct 21, 2020, at 6:49 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 08:30:18PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> >> Today's linux-next starts to trigger this wondering if anyone has any clue.
> > 
> > I've seen that occasionally too.  I changed that BUG_ON to VM_BUG_ON_PAGE
> > to try to get a clue about it.  Good to know it's not the THP patches
> > since they aren't in linux-next.
> > 
> > I don't understand how it can happen.  We have the page locked, and then we do:
> > 
> >                        if (PageWriteback(page)) {
> >                                if (wbc->sync_mode != WB_SYNC_NONE)
> >                                        wait_on_page_writeback(page);
> >                                else
> >                                        goto continue_unlock;
> >                        }
> > 
> >                        VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageWriteback(page), page);
> > 
> > Nobody should be able to put this page under writeback while we have it
> > locked ... right?  The page can be redirtied by the code that's supposed
> > to be writing it back, but I don't see how anyone can make PageWriteback
> > true while we're holding the page lock.
> 
> Looking at __test_set_page_writeback(), I see that it (and most other
> callers to lock_page_memcg()) do the following:

lock_page_memcg() is, unfortunately, completely unrelated to lock_page().
I believe all callers of __test_set_page_writeback() have the page lock
held already, but I'm going to put in an assert to that effect.