Re: [PATCH] mm/filemap: queue non-exclusive folio waiters ahead of exclusive

[Andrew Morton]

(cc filemap.c maintainers)

On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 22:43:47 -0000 "M. Grove" <mgrove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> A folio waiter queued behind an exclusive folio_lock() waiter on the same
> folio is skipped by folio_wake_bit()'s nr_exclusive=1 walk: a shared/DROP
> sleeper (folio_put_wait_locked from do_read_cache_folio) never receives
> WQ_FLAG_WOKEN even though its wake ran.  Readers then hang D-state in
> folio_wait_bit_common while fresh reads of the same page answer instantly,
> and the sleeper wakes only with each later lock/unlock of that address, one
> page at a time.
> 
> Same symptom as syzbot's "INFO: task hung in read_cache_folio (6)"
> (extid 9db0864859224b833108).

https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=9db0864859224b833108

So are you saying that this patch will fix that sysbot report?

If so, a Reported-by: and its Closes: would be helpful.

Some description of *why* that sysbot hang occurred would also be
helpful.

You can do an emailed reply "#sys test" to the sysbot report.  Than
paste in the patch and it'll rerun the test for you, if it has a
reproducer.

Plese reconcile this with
https://lists.openwall.net/linux-kernel/2026/10/26/2932?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Did Josef already fix this?

> The change only reorders the enqueue side: non-exclusive waiters use wait.h's
> default head-side insert, exclusive folio_lock waiters keep the tail, so
> wake-one fairness for lockers is unchanged.  Built on mm-stable
> 183895979c44; mm/filemap.o also builds on v7.2.6.
> 
> Queue-walk instrument (read-only, counts non-exclusive entries left
> unvisited when folio_wake_bit() returns): 363 skipped waiters per 10-minute
> run before the change, 1 after the folio_wait_bit_common site, 0 after the
> softleaf_entry_wait_on_locked site as well.  Reproducer shape: threads pread
> a file while others block in folio_lock on the same pages (hole punch,
> truncate or mmap faults) under reclaim churn.  Harness, traces or configs on
> request.

Sorry, this is all quite unclear (to me, at least).  What is the actual
bug, how is it triggered and observed, etc.  

> Signed-off-by: M. Grove <mgrove@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  mm/filemap.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
> index b74bc1e5015c..35869d19d17a 100644
> --- a/mm/filemap.c
> +++ b/mm/filemap.c
> @@ -1293,8 +1293,18 @@ static inline int folio_wait_bit_common(struct folio *folio, int bit_nr,
>  	 */
>  	spin_lock_irq(&q->lock);
>  	folio_set_waiters(folio);
> -	if (!folio_trylock_flag(folio, bit_nr, wait))
> -		__add_wait_queue_entry_tail(q, wait);
> +	if (!folio_trylock_flag(folio, bit_nr, wait)) {
> +		/*
> +		 * A non-exclusive (shared/DROP) waiter must queue ahead of
> +		 * exclusive folio_lock waiters: the nr_exclusive=1 wake walk
> +		 * stops at the first exclusive match, so a non-exclusive
> +		 * waiter behind one is never visited and never woken.
> +		 */
> +		if (behavior == EXCLUSIVE)
> +			__add_wait_queue_entry_tail(q, wait);
> +		else
> +			__add_wait_queue(q, wait);
> +	}
>  	spin_unlock_irq(&q->lock);
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -1428,7 +1438,7 @@ void softleaf_entry_wait_on_locked(softleaf_t entry, spinlock_t *ptl)
>  	spin_lock_irq(&q->lock);
>  	folio_set_waiters(folio);
>  	if (!folio_trylock_flag(folio, PG_locked, wait))
> -		__add_wait_queue_entry_tail(q, wait);
> +		__add_wait_queue(q, wait);
>  	spin_unlock_irq(&q->lock);
>  
>  	/*
> -- 
> 2.56.0