lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: take i_mmap_lock in unmap_mapping_range() for DAX
Date
Ross Zwisler wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 02:12:18PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 04:52:42PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > Hi Kirill,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov
> > > <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > DAX is not so special: we need i_mmap_lock to protect mapping->i_mmap.
> > > >
> > > > __dax_pmd_fault() uses unmap_mapping_range() shoot out zero page from
> > > > all mappings. We need to drop i_mmap_lock there to avoid lock deadlock.
> > > >
> > > > Re-aquiring the lock should be fine since we check i_size after the
> > > > point.
> > > >
> > > > Not-yet-signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > fs/dax.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > > > mm/memory.c | 11 ++---------
> > > > 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c
> > > > index 9ef9b80cc132..ed54efedade6 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/dax.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/dax.c
> > > > @@ -554,6 +554,25 @@ int __dax_pmd_fault(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
> > > > if (!buffer_size_valid(&bh) || bh.b_size < PMD_SIZE)
> > > > goto fallback;
> > > >
> > > > + if (buffer_unwritten(&bh) || buffer_new(&bh)) {
> > > > + int i;
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; i++)
> > > > + clear_page(kaddr + i * PAGE_SIZE);
> > >
> > > This patch, now upstream as commit 46c043ede471, moves the call to
> > > clear_page() earlier in __dax_pmd_fault(). However, 'kaddr' is not
> > > set at this point, so I'm not sure this path was ever tested.
> >
> > Ughh. It's obviously broken.
> >
> > I took fs/dax.c part of the patch from Matthew. And I'm not sure now we
> > would need to move this "if (buffer_unwritten(&bh) || buffer_new(&bh)) {"
> > block around. It should work fine where it was before. Right?
> > Matthew?
>
> Moving the "if (buffer_unwritten(&bh) || buffer_new(&bh)) {" block back seems
> correct to me. Matthew is out for a while, so we should probably take care of
> this without him.
>
> Kirill, do you want to whip up a quick patch? I'm happy to do it if you're
> busy.

I would be better if you'll prepare the patch. Thanks.

--
Kirill


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-17 18:01    [W:0.143 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site