On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 11:11:49AM -0800, Dan Williams 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 I tested it but with the patch that was not included and that extra patch did properly initialize the range struct. So the patchset had a broken step. Cheers, Jérôme
