On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:38:18 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:19:30 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > I'd expect that you could reproduce this by disabling readahead with
> > > fadvise(POSIX_FADV_RANDOM) and then issuing the above four reads.
> > >
> > Thank you for advice. I'll try.
> >
> (Added lkml to CC
>
> What happens:
> When I do memory offline on ia64/NUMA box, __set_page_dirty_buffers() printed
> out WARNINGS because the page under migration is not up-to-date.

The warning is in __set_page_dirty().

> Following is my investigation.
>
> Assume 16k pages / 4 buffers of 4096bytes block (ext3).
> 4 buffers on a page of ext3.
>
> At page offlining, we can find a page which is not up-to-date.
> But all buffers of the page seems up-to-date.
>
> buffers on a page by prink().
> buffer 0, block_nr= some vaule, state= BH_uptodate | BH_Req| BH_Mapped
> buffer 1, block_nr= -1, state= BH_uptodate
> buffer 2, block_nr= -1, state= BH_uptodate
> buffer 3, block_nr= -1, state= BH_uptodate
>
> It seems no I/O for 3 buffers. It's because the page is the last page of inode
> and blocks for buffer[1,2,3] is not assgined.
> (maybe BH_uptodate is set by block_write_full_page().
>
> Adding below check can hide the warning....but I can't say this is correct.
> Can we set this page dirty silently in this case ?
>
> ===
> +
> +static int check_fragment_page(struct page *page, struct address_space *mapping
> )
> +{
> + struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
> + unsigned long lastblock, coverblock;
> +
> + if (!page_has_buffers(page))
> + return 0;
> +
> + lastblock = (i_size_read(inode) - 1) >> inode->i_blkbits;
> + coverblock = (page->index + 1) << (PAGE_SHIFT - inode->i_blkbits);
> +
> + return coverblock > lastblock;
> +}
> +
> +
> +
> static int __set_page_dirty(struct page *page,
> struct address_space *mapping, int warn)
> {
> @@ -717,7 +734,9 @@ static int __set_page_dirty(struct page
>
> write_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> if (page->mapping) { /* Race with truncate? */
> - WARN_ON_ONCE(warn && !PageUptodate(page));
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(warn
> + && !PageUptodate(page)
> + && !check_fragment_page(page, mapping));
>
> if (mapping_cap_account_dirty(mapping)) {
> __inc_zone_page_state(page, NR_FILE_DIRTY);
> ==

The warning is just wrong, I think. We don't nowmally hit it because
write() will use mark_buffer_dirty() which supresses the warning and mmaped
pages are uptodate.

Nick?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:43:03 -0700
Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:38:18 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:19:30 +0900
> > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > I'd expect that you could reproduce this by disabling readahead with
> > > > fadvise(POSIX_FADV_RANDOM) and then issuing the above four reads.
> > > >
> > > Thank you for advice. I'll try.
> > >
> > (Added lkml to CC
> >
> > What happens:
> > When I do memory offline on ia64/NUMA box, __set_page_dirty_buffers() printed
> > out WARNINGS because the page under migration is not up-to-date.
>
> The warning is in __set_page_dirty().
>
Sorry, __set_page_dirty() in fs/buffer.c

Thanks,
-Kame

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/