On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 04:18:37PM -0600, Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 12:14 PM Saurabh Sengar
> <ssengar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > From: John Starks <jostarks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > For dax pud, pud_huge() returns true on x86. So the function works as long
> > as hugetlb is configured. However, dax doesn't depend on hugetlb.
> > Commit 414fd080d125 ("mm/gup: fix gup_pmd_range() for dax") fixed
> > devmap-backed huge PMDs, but missed devmap-backed huge PUDs. Fix this as
> > well.
> >
> > Fixes: 414fd080d125 ("mm/gup: fix gup_pmd_range() for dax")
> > Signed-off-by: John Starks <jostarks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Saurabh Sengar <ssengar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mm/gup.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> > index 05068d3d2557..9e07aa54a4cd 100644
> > --- a/mm/gup.c
> > +++ b/mm/gup.c
> > @@ -2687,7 +2687,7 @@ static int gup_pud_range(p4d_t *p4dp, p4d_t p4d, unsigned long addr, unsigned lo
> > next = pud_addr_end(addr, end);
> > if (unlikely(!pud_present(pud)))
> > return 0;
> > - if (unlikely(pud_huge(pud))) {
> > + if (unlikely(pud_huge(pud) || pud_devmap(pud))) {
>
> Perhaps s/pud_huge/pud_leaf/ ?
Looks good to me but I am not sure the wider impact of this, I will let maintainers
comment on it. Meanwhile I will send a V2 with more description of panic observed.
>
> > if (!gup_huge_pud(pud, pudp, addr, next, flags,
> > pages, nr))
> > return 0;
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
