Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-161203-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 17:57:17 -0700
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, ziy@nvidia.com
Cc: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@pankajraghav.com>, djwong@kernel.org,
	brauner@kernel.org, david@fromorbit.com, chandan.babu@oracle.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	hare@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, gost.dev@samsung.com,
	p.raghav@samsung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/11] mm: do not split a folio if it has minimum
 folio order requirement
Message-ID: <Zi2e7ecKJK6p6ERu@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20240425113746.335530-1-kernel@pankajraghav.com>
 <20240425113746.335530-6-kernel@pankajraghav.com>
 <Ziq4qAJ_p7P9Smpn@casper.infradead.org>
 <Zir5n6JNiX14VoPm@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <Ziw8w3P9vljrO9JV@bombadil.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Ziw8w3P9vljrO9JV@bombadil.infradead.org>
Sender: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@infradead.org>

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 04:46:11PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 05:47:28PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 09:10:16PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 01:37:40PM +0200, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> > > > From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
> > > > 
> > > > using that API for LBS is resulting in an NULL ptr dereference
> > > > error in the writeback path [1].
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://gist.github.com/mcgrof/d12f586ec6ebe32b2472b5d634c397df
> > > 
> > >  How would I go about reproducing this?

Well so the below fixes this but I am not sure if this is correct.
folio_mark_dirty() at least says that a folio should not be truncated
while its running. I am not sure if we should try to split folios then
even though we check for writeback once. truncate_inode_partial_folio()
will folio_wait_writeback() but it will split_folio() before checking
for claiming to fail to truncate with folio_test_dirty(). But since the
folio is locked its not clear why this should be possible.

diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
index 83955362d41c..90195506211a 100644
--- a/mm/huge_memory.c
+++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
@@ -3058,7 +3058,7 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(struct page *page, struct list_head *list,
 	if (new_order >= folio_order(folio))
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	if (folio_test_writeback(folio))
+	if (folio_test_dirty(folio) || folio_test_writeback(folio))
 		return -EBUSY;
 
 	if (!folio_test_anon(folio)) {