Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dax: prevent invalidation of mapped DAX entries

[Ross Zwisler]

On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 09:29:12AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 04-05-17 13:59:09, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > dax_invalidate_mapping_entry() currently removes DAX exceptional entries
> > only if they are clean and unlocked.  This is done via:
> > 
> > invalidate_mapping_pages()
> >   invalidate_exceptional_entry()
> >     dax_invalidate_mapping_entry()
> > 
> > However, for page cache pages removed in invalidate_mapping_pages() there
> > is an additional criteria which is that the page must not be mapped.  This
> > is noted in the comments above invalidate_mapping_pages() and is checked in
> > invalidate_inode_page().
> > 
> > For DAX entries this means that we can can end up in a situation where a
> > DAX exceptional entry, either a huge zero page or a regular DAX entry,
> > could end up mapped but without an associated radix tree entry. This is
> > inconsistent with the rest of the DAX code and with what happens in the
> > page cache case.
> > 
> > We aren't able to unmap the DAX exceptional entry because according to its
> > comments invalidate_mapping_pages() isn't allowed to block, and
> > unmap_mapping_range() takes a write lock on the mapping->i_mmap_rwsem.
> > 
> > We could potentially do an rmap walk to see if each of the entries actually
> > has any active mappings before we remove it, but this might end up being
> > very expensive and doesn't currently look to be worth it.
> > 
> > So, just remove dax_invalidate_mapping_entry() and leave the DAX entries in
> > the radix tree.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Fixes: c6dcf52c23d2 ("mm: Invalidate DAX radix tree entries only if appropriate")
> > Reported-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>    [4.10+]
> 
> Ah, I've just sent out a series which contains these two patches and
> another two patches which change the entry locking to fix the last spotted
> race...  So either just take my last two patches on top of these two or
> take my series as a whole.

Sounds good. You added a better comment in invalidate_inode_pages2_range(), so
let's just use your version of this series.