On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:43:31PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> So there are three places that can fail after we allocate the block:
> 1) We race with truncate reducing i_size
> 2) dax_get_pfn() fails
> 3) vm_insert_mixed() fails
>
> I would guess that 2) can fail only if the HW has problems and leaking
> block in that case could be acceptable (please correct me if I'm wrong).
> 3) shouldn't fail because of ENOMEM because fault has already allocated all
> the page tables and EBUSY should be handled as well. So the only failure we
> have to care about is 1). And we could move ->get_block() call under
> i_mmap_mutex after the i_size check. Lock ordering should be fine because
> i_mmap_mutex ranks above page lock under which we do block mapping in
> standard ->page_mkwrite callbacks. The only (big) drawback is that
> i_mmap_mutex will now be held for much longer time and thus the contention
> would be much higher. But hopefully once we resolve our problems with
> mmap_sem and introduce mapping range lock we could scale reasonably.
Lockdep barfs on holding i_mmap_mutex while calling ext4's ->get_block.
Path 1:
ext4_fallocate ->
ext4_punch_hole ->
ext4_inode_attach_jinode() -> ... ->
lock_map_acquire(&handle->h_lockdep_map);
truncate_pagecache_range() ->
unmap_mapping_range() ->
mutex_lock(&mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
Path 2:
do_dax_fault() ->
mutex_lock(&mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
ext4_get_block() -> ... ->
lock_map_acquire(&handle->h_lockdep_map);
So that idea doesn't work.
We can't exclude truncates by incrementing i_dio_count, because we can't
take i_mutex in the fault path.
I'm stumped.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
