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:   Tue, 5 Jan 2021 21:34:33 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        syzbot <syzbot+2fc0712f8f8b8b8fa0ef@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at mm/page-writeback.c:LINE!
Message-ID: <20210105213433.GC175893@casper.infradead.org>
References: <000000000000886dbd05b7ffa8db@google.com>
 <20210104124153.0992b1f7fd1a145e193a333f@linux-foundation.org>
 <CAHk-=wi6hd8ATJ1W90goTxjgyvuoFsf0xZdAJmZ2c0dx5wcJSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LSU.2.11.2101041839440.3466@eggly.anvils>
 <CAHk-=wi36CBggdRfdggACvf2hG+djM9kKnorrwsByN6uDvPExA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wh=5kDGukMs2sVZ8uHZJX4VL13oD5+xMAR4HvuY6QckLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LSU.2.11.2101051235500.5906@eggly.anvils>
 <CAHk-=wiGHdRRmZtrcUt6g6hmATkmueNVLNnSHSBoUp-v-Qy5sw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiGHdRRmZtrcUt6g6hmATkmueNVLNnSHSBoUp-v-Qy5sw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 01:22:49PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:13 PM Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > I was going to raise a question, whether you should now revert
> > 073861ed77b6 ("mm: fix VM_BUG_ON(PageTail) and BUG_ON(PageWriteback)"):
> > which would not have gone in like that if c2407cf7d22d were already in.
> 
> Honestly, even if it wasn't for that PageTail issue, I think
> 073861ed77b6 is just the right thing to do anyway. It just feels _so_
> much safer to not have the possibility of that page wait thing
> following while the page is possibly then being free'd and re-used at
> the same time.
> 
> So I think the only reason to revert that commit would be if we were
> to find that it's a huge performance problem to raise the page
> refcount temporarily. Which I think is very unlikely (since we already
> dirty the page structure due to the page flags modification - although
> they are far enough apart that it might be a different cacheline).

struct pages _tend_ to be 64 bytes on 64-bit platforms (and i suspect
you're long past caring about performance on 32-bit platforms).