Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Message-ID: <tencent_F89651CE8E1BFCEC42C4BFEDD0CA77F82609@qq.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Nov 2023 12:09:37 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Question about LTS 4.19 patch "89047634f5ce NFS: Don't interrupt
 file writeout due to fatal errors"
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>,
        "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        "chenxiaosong@kylinos.cn" <chenxiaosong@kylinos.cn>,
        "stable@vger.kernel.org" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        "huangjinhui@kylinos.cn" <huangjinhui@kylinos.cn>,
        "liuzhengyuan@kylinos.cn" <liuzhengyuan@kylinos.cn>,
        "liuyun01@kylinos.cn" <liuyun01@kylinos.cn>,
        "huhai@kylinos.cn" <huhai@kylinos.cn>,
        "sashal@kernel.org" <sashal@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Anna.Schumaker@netapp.com" <Anna.Schumaker@netapp.com>
References: <tencent_BEDA418B8BD86995FBF3E92D4F9F5D342C0A@qq.com>
 <2023103055-anaerobic-childhood-c1f1@gregkh>
 <tencent_4CA081DD6E435CDA2EAB9C826F7899F78C05@qq.com>
 <2023103055-saddled-payer-bd26@gregkh>
 <tencent_21E20176E2E5AB7C33CB5E67F10D02763508@qq.com>
 <3b8caab5918d06f436a889bc1dba09686fc0fad5.camel@hammerspace.com>
From:   ChenXiaoSong <chenxiaosongemail@foxmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3b8caab5918d06f436a889bc1dba09686fc0fad5.camel@hammerspace.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2023/10/30 22:56, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> A refactoring is by definition a change that does not affect code
> behaviour. It is obvious that this was never intended to be such a
> patch.
>
> The reason that the bug is occurring in 4.19.x, and not in the latest
> kernels, is because the former is missing another bugfix (one which
> actually is missing a "Fixes:" tag).
>
> Can you therefore please check if applying commit 22876f540bdf ("NFS:
> Don't call generic_error_remove_page() while holding locks") fixes the
> issue.
>
> Note that the latter patch is needed in any case in order to fix a read
> deadlock (as indicated on the label).
>
> Thanks,
>    Trond

Sorry, the previous email had formatting issues. I'll resend it.


After applying commit 22876f540bdf ("NFS: Don't call 
generic_error_remove_page() while holding locks"), I encountered an 
issue of infinite loop:

write
   ...
   nfs_updatepage
     nfs_writepage_setup
       nfs_setup_write_request
         nfs_try_to_update_request
           nfs_wb_page
             if (clear_page_dirty_for_io(page)) // true
             nfs_writepage_locked // return 0
               nfs_do_writepage // return 0
                 nfs_page_async_flush // return 0
                   nfs_error_is_fatal_on_server
                   nfs_write_error_remove_page
                     SetPageError // instead of generic_error_remove_page
             // loop begin
             if (clear_page_dirty_for_io(page)) // false
             if (!PagePrivate(page)) // false
             ret = nfs_commit_inode = 0
             // loop again, never quit


before applying commit 22876f540bdf ("NFS: Don't call 
generic_error_remove_page() while holding locks"), 
generic_error_remove_page() will clear PG_private, and infinite loop 
will never happen:

generic_error_remove_page
   truncate_inode_page
     truncate_cleanup_page
       do_invalidatepage
         nfs_invalidate_page
           nfs_wb_page_cancel
             nfs_inode_remove_request
               ClearPagePrivate(head->wb_page)


If applying this patch, are other patches required? And I cannot 
reproducethe read deadlock bug that the patch want to fix, are there 
specific conditions required to reproduce this read deadlock bug?