[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <565F6C06.9060208@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 14:09:10 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
mauricio.porto@....com, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Fix mmap MAP_POPULATE for DAX pmd mapping
On 12/02/2015 02:03 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> >> Is pfn_valid() a reliable check? It seems to be based on a max_pfn
>>> >> per node... what happens when pmem is located below that point. I
>>> >> haven't been able to convince myself that we won't get false
>>> >> positives, but maybe I'm missing something.
>> >
>> > With sparsemem at least, it makes sure that you're looking at a valid
>> > _section_. See the pfn_valid() at ~include/linux/mmzone.h:1222.
> At a minimum we would need to add "depends on SPARSEMEM" to "config FS_DAX_PMD".
Yeah, it seems like an awful layering violation. But, sparsemem is
turned on everywhere (all the distros/users) that we care about, as far
as I know.
--
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