On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 12:57:37PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sat 29-03-25 23:47:31, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c
> > index c7abb4a029dc..a4e4455a6ce2 100644
> > --- a/fs/buffer.c
> > +++ b/fs/buffer.c
> > @@ -208,6 +208,15 @@ __find_get_block_slow(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block)
> > head = folio_buffers(folio);
> > if (!head)
> > goto out_unlock;
> > +
> > + if (folio->mapping->a_ops->migrate_folio &&
> > + folio->mapping->a_ops->migrate_folio == buffer_migrate_folio_norefs) {
>
> This is always true for bdev mapping we have here, isn't it?
Yes, thanks!
> > + if (folio_test_lru(folio) &&
>
> Do you expect bdev page cache to contain non-LRU folios? I thought every
> pagecache folio is on LRU so this seems pointless as well? But I may be
> missing something here.
>
> > + folio_test_locked(folio) &&
> > + !folio_test_writeback(folio))
> > + goto out_unlock;
>
> I find this problematic. It fixes the race with migration, alright
> (although IMO we should have a comment very well explaining the interplay
> of folio lock and mapping->private_lock to make this work - probably in
> buffer_migrate_folio_norefs() - and reference it from here), but there are
> places which expect that if __find_get_block() doesn't return anything,
> this block is not cached in the buffer cache. And your change breaks this
> assumption.
Yup agreed!
Luis
