On Wed 11-05-16 13:26:32, Ross Zwisler wrote: > > > In the various places where clear_exceptional_entry() is called, the code > > > batches up a bunch of entries in a pvec via pagevec_lookup_entries(). We > > > don't hold the mapping->tree_lock between the time this lookup happens and the > > > time that the entry is passed to clear_exceptional_entry(). This is why the > > > old code did a verification that the entry passed in matched what was still > > > currently present in the radix tree. This was done in the DAX case via > > > radix_tree_delete_item(), and it was open coded in clear_exceptional_entry() > > > for the page cache case. In both cases if the entry didn't match what was > > > currently in the tree, we bailed without doing anything. > > > > > > This new code doesn't verify against the 'entry' passed to > > > clear_exceptional_entry(), but instead makes sure it is an exceptional entry > > > before removing, and if not it does a WARN_ON_ONCE(). > > > > > > This changes things because: > > > > > > a) If the exceptional entry changed, say from a plain lock entry to an actual > > > DAX entry, we wouldn't notice, and we would just clear the latter out. My > > > guess is that this is fine, I just wanted to call it out. > > > > > > b) If we have a non-exceptional entry here now, say because our lock entry has > > > been swapped out for a zero page, we will WARN_ON_ONCE() and return without a > > > removal. I think we may want to silence the WARN_ON_ONCE(), as I believe this > > > could happen during normal operation and we don't want to scare anyone. :) > > > > So your concerns are exactly why I have added a comment to > > dax_delete_mapping_entry() that: > > > > /* > > * Caller should make sure radix tree modifications don't race and > > * we have seen exceptional entry here before. > > */ > > > > The thing is dax_delete_mapping_entry() is called only from truncate / > > punch hole path. Those should hold i_mmap_sem for writing and thus there > > should be no modifications of the radix tree. If anything changes, between > > what truncate_inode_pages() (or similar functions) finds and what > > dax_delete_mapping_entry() sees, we have a locking bug and I want to know > > about it :). Any suggestion how I should expand the comment so that this is > > clearer? > > Ah, I didn't understand all that. :) Given a bit more context the comment > seems fine - if anything it could be a bit more specific, and include the > text: "dax_delete_mapping_entry() is called only from truncate / punch hole > path. Those should hold i_mmap_sem for writing and thus there should be no > modifications of the radix tree." Either way - thanks for explaining. OK, I've made the comment more detailed. > At the end of this mail I've attached one small fixup for the incremental diff > you sent. Aside from that, I think that you've addressed all my review > feedback, thanks! Yup, I've found this out as well when compiling the new version. > Reviewed-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>