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:   Wed, 2 Jun 2021 16:52:52 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>
Cc:     jack@suse.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: __buffer_migrate_page() vs ll_rw_block()
Message-ID: <20210602145252.GA23647@quack2.suse.cz>
References: <20210601132316.GA27976@axis.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210601132316.GA27976@axis.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue 01-06-21 15:23:17, Vincent Whitchurch wrote:
> I'm seeing occasional squashfs read failures ("squashfs_read_data failed
> to read block") when compaction is run at the same time as reading from
> squashfs, with something like the commands below.  The kernel version is
> the latest stable/v5.4 kernel, v5.4.123.
> 
>  while :; do echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory; done &
>  while :; do echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; find fs/ > /dev/null; done &
> 
> On this kernel, squashfs uses ll_rw_block().  The problem is that
> ll_rw_block() ignores BHs which it can't get a lock on, but
> __buffer_migrate_page() can take the lock on the BHs in order to check
> if they can be migrated.  If __buffer_migrate_page() holds the lock at
> the same time that ll_rw_block() wants it, the BH is skipped and I/O is
> not issued for these blocks, and squashfs ends up seeing
> !buffer_uptodate() and erroring out.
> 
> On newer kernels, squashfs doesn't use ll_rw_block() anymore, but I
> still see other users of that function in other filesystems, and AFAICS
> the underlying problem of the race with __buffer_migrate_page() has not
> yet been fixed.
> 
> I'd be happy to receive any suggestions about the right way to fix this.

Well, if you care about squashfs, the best solution would IMO be to
backport 93e72b3c612adc ("squashfs: migrate from ll_rw_block usage to BIO")
and the followup fixes (there are several of them as far as I can see by
Fixes tags) to your kernel - stable tree would be IMHO willing to take the
series if you add your justification that it fixes read failures for you.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR