On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 11:19 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 11:11:49 -0800 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:04 PM Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 02:50:05PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 01:25:31PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 08:13:32AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > An overnight test run on a current TOT kernel failed generic/413 > > > > > > with the following dmesg output: > > > > > > > > > > > > [ 9487.276402] RIP: 0010:__follow_pte_pmd+0x22d/0x340 > > > > > > [ 9487.305065] Call Trace: > > > > > > [ 9487.307310] dax_entry_mkclean+0xbb/0x1f0 > > > > > > > > > > We've only got one commit touching dax_entry_mkclean and it's Jerome's. > > > > > Looking through ac46d4f3c43241ffa23d5bf36153a0830c0e02cc, I'd say > > > > > it's missing a call to mmu_notifier_range_init(). > > > > > > > > Could I persuade you to give this a try? > > > > > > Yup, that fixes it. > > > > > > And looking at the code, the dax mmu notifier code clearly wasn't > > > tested. i.e. dax_entry_mkclean() is the *only* code that exercises > > > the conditional range parameter code paths inside > > > __follow_pte_pmd(). This means it wasn't tested before it was > > > proposed for inclusion and since inclusion no-one using -akpm, > > > linux-next or the current mainline TOT has done any filesystem DAX > > > testing until I tripped over it. > > > > > > IOws, this is the second "this was never tested before it was merged > > > into mainline" XFS regression that I've found in the last 3 weeks. > > > Both commits have been merged through the -akpm tree, and that > > > implies we currently have no significant filesystem QA coverage on > > > changes being merged through this route. This seems like an area > > > that needs significant improvement to me.... > > > > Yes, this is also part of a series I explicitly NAK'd [1] because > > there are no upstream users for it. I didn't bother to test it because > > I thought the NAK was sufficient. > > > > Andrew, any reason to not revert the set? They provide no upstream > > value and actively break DAX. > > > > [1]: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg137309.html > > You objected to "mm/mmu_notifier: contextual information for event > triggering invalidation" and, agreeing, I have held that back pending > further examination. Ah, ok, I thought the whole set went in, my mistake. > The culprit here appears to be ac46d4f3c ("mm/mmu_notifier: use > structure for invalidate_range_start/end calls") which seems to have a > bug, which appears to now have a fix? It does, but I'm not sure we need the rest of the code movement without the missing final step that builds on the refactoring.
