[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1394841524.6784.213.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 17:58:44 -0600
From: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: willy@...ux.intel.com, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
david@...morbit.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Support map_pages() for DAX
On Sat, 2014-03-15 at 01:32 +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:03:19PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > +void dax_map_pages(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_fault *vmf,
> > + get_block_t get_block)
> > +{
> > + struct file *file = vma->vm_file;
> > + struct inode *inode = file_inode(file);
> > + struct buffer_head bh;
> > + struct address_space *mapping = file->f_mapping;
> > + unsigned long vaddr = (unsigned long)vmf->virtual_address;
> > + pgoff_t pgoff = vmf->pgoff;
> > + sector_t block;
> > + pgoff_t size;
> > + unsigned long pfn;
> > + pte_t *pte = vmf->pte;
> > + int error;
> > +
> > + while (pgoff < vmf->max_pgoff) {
> > + size = (i_size_read(inode) + PAGE_SIZE - 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > + if (pgoff >= size)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + memset(&bh, 0, sizeof(bh));
> > + block = (sector_t)pgoff << (PAGE_SHIFT - inode->i_blkbits);
> > + bh.b_size = PAGE_SIZE;
> > + error = get_block(inode, block, &bh, 0);
> > + if (error || bh.b_size < PAGE_SIZE)
> > + goto next;
> > +
> > + if (!buffer_mapped(&bh) || buffer_unwritten(&bh) ||
> > + buffer_new(&bh))
> > + goto next;
> > +
> > + /* Recheck i_size under i_mmap_mutex */
> > + mutex_lock(&mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
>
> NAK. Have you tested this with lockdep enabled?
>
> ->map_pages() called with page table lock taken and ->i_mmap_mutex
> should be taken before it. It seems we need to take ->i_mmap_mutex in
> do_read_fault() before calling ->map_pages().
Thanks for pointing this out! I will make sure to test with lockdep next
time.
> Side note: I'm sceptical about whole idea to use i_mmap_mutux to protect
> against truncate. It will not scale good enough comparing lock_page()
> with its granularity.
I see. I will think about it as well.
Thanks,
-Toshi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists