> > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > While testing device mapper with DAX, I faced a bug with the commit: > > > > commit ad428cdb525a97d15c0349fdc80f3d58befb50df > > Author: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Wed Feb 20 21:12:50 2019 -0800 > > > > When I reverted the condition to old code[1] it worked for me. I > > am thinking when we map two different devices (e.g with device mapper), > > will > > start & end pfn still point to same pgmap? Or there is something else which > > I am missing here. > > > > Note: I tested only EXT4. > > > > [1] > > > > - if (pgmap && pgmap->type == MEMORY_DEVICE_FS_DAX) > > + end_pgmap = get_dev_pagemap(pfn_t_to_pfn(end_pfn), NULL); > > + if (pgmap && pgmap == end_pgmap && pgmap->type == > > MEMORY_DEVICE_FS_DAX > > + && pfn_t_to_page(pfn)->pgmap == pgmap > > + && pfn_t_to_page(end_pfn)->pgmap == pgmap > > + && pfn_t_to_pfn(pfn) == > > PHYS_PFN(__pa(kaddr)) > > + && pfn_t_to_pfn(end_pfn) == > > PHYS_PFN(__pa(end_kaddr))) > > Ugh, yes, device-mapper continues to be an awkward fit for dax (or > vice versa). We would either need a way to have a multi-level pfn to > pagemap lookup for composite devices, or a way to discern that even > though the pagemap is different that the result is still valid / not > an indication that we have leaked into an unassociated address range. > Perhaps a per-daxdev callback for ->dax_supported() so that > device-mapper internals can be used for this validation. Yes, Will look at it. > > We need to get that fixed up, but I don't see it as a blocker / > pre-requisite for virtio-pmem. Agree. Will send virtio-pmem patch series. Thank you, Pankaj > >
