Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220921060616.73086-1-ying.huang@intel.com> <20220921060616.73086-3-ying.huang@intel.com>
 <87o7v2lbn4.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal> <CAHbLzkpPNbggD+AaT7wFQXkKqCS2cXnq=Xv3m4WuHLMBWGTmpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <87fsgdllmb.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal> <87ill937qe.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <46807002-c42c-1232-0938-5b48050171ee@nvidia.com> <CAHbLzkqRyav0fZ5gzaKbkTfGBxkQXTpu0NJz-A9j7UaHhVBxEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <87pmfgjnpj.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal> <87czbg2s3b.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <240bbb01-1f26-71ee-233a-ad65313ac358@nvidia.com> <CAHbLzkpnCTD_c60QPu25hPymCYwLP6fYRMxp1EWmzX0SBF4g1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <4a44bf59-a984-8ac4-c613-a03d74dc6a5a@nvidia.com> <CAHbLzkoEDUauo-H=zYvnDTC8TX4uezPxA4nV=QVQK_qxyZ3wjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <9d72f2ed-9a92-e67b-3af5-79050004a1a4@nvidia.com>
In-Reply-To: <9d72f2ed-9a92-e67b-3af5-79050004a1a4@nvidia.com>
From:   Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Sep 2022 20:25:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHbLzkqTz9aNE=thZR2sw2SVf2YWOLCmSNgmEOJD587s+28A1w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/6] mm/migrate_pages: split unmap_and_move() to _unmap()
 and _move()
To:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Cc:     "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 7:57 PM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/27/22 19:14, Yang Shi wrote:
> > IIRC, the writeback may not call generic_writepages. On my ext4
> > filesystem, the writeback call stack looks like:
> >
> > @[
> >     ext4_writepages+1
> >     do_writepages+191
> >     __writeback_single_inode+65
> >     writeback_sb_inodes+477
> >     __writeback_inodes_wb+76
> >     wb_writeback+457
> >     wb_workfn+680
> >     process_one_work+485
> >     worker_thread+80
> >     kthread+231
> >     ret_from_fork+34
> > ]: 2
> >
>
> Sure, that's fine for ext4, in that particular case, but
>
> a) not all filesystems have .writepages hooked up. That's why
> do_writepages() checks for .writepages(), and falls back to
> .writepage():
>
>         if (mapping->a_ops->writepages)
>                 ret = mapping->a_ops->writepages(mapping, wbc);
>         else
>                 ret = generic_writepages(mapping, wbc);
>
> , and
>
> b) there are also a lot of places and ways to invoke writebacks. There
> are periodic writebacks, and there are data integrity (WB_SYNC_ALL)
> writebacks, and other places where a page needs to be cleaned--so, a lot
> of call sites. Some of which will land on a .writepage() sometimes, even
> now.
>
> For just one example, I see migrate.c's writeout() function directly
> calling writepage():
>
>         rc = mapping->a_ops->writepage(&folio->page, &wbc);

Thanks, John. You are right. I think "deprecated" is inaccurate,
.writepage is actually no longer used in memory reclaim context, but
it is still used for other contexts.

Anyway I think what we tried to figure out in the first place is
whether it is possible that filesystem writeback have dead lock with
the new batch migration or not. I think the conclusion didn't change.

>
>
> thanks,
>
> --
> John Hubbard
> NVIDIA
>