Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 28 Jun 2019 09:54:17 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc:     linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        Robert Barror <robert.barror@intel.com>,
        Seema Pandit <seema.pandit@intel.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] filesystem-dax: Disable PMD support
Message-ID: <20190628165417.GD4286@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <156159454541.2964018.7466991316059381921.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20190627123415.GA4286@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <CAPcyv4jQP-SFJGor-Q3VCRQ0xwt3MuVpH2qHx2wzyRA88DGQww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPcyv4jjqooboxivY=AsfEPhCvxdwU66GpwE9vM+cqrZWvtX3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPcyv4h6HgNE38RF5TxO3C268ZvrxgcPNrPWOt94MnO5gP_pjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPcyv4gwd1_VHk_MfHeNSxyH+N1=aatj9WkKXqYNPkSXe4bFDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190627195948.GB4286@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <CAPcyv4iB3f1hDdCsw=Cy234dP-RXpxGyXDoTwEU8nt5qUDEVQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190628163721.GC4286@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <CAPcyv4jeRwhYWnGw9RrfDA54RRa9LK4JPuF3zQ-av=HdRqCTJw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4jeRwhYWnGw9RrfDA54RRa9LK4JPuF3zQ-av=HdRqCTJw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 09:39:01AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 9:37 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> > That was the conclusion I came to; that one thread holding the mmap sem
> > for read isn't being woken up when it should be.  Just need to find it ...
> > obviously it's something to do with the PMD entries.
> 
> Can you explain to me one more time, yes I'm slow on the uptake on
> this, the difference between xas_load() and xas_find_conflict() and
> why it's ok for dax_lock_page() to use xas_load() while
> grab_mapping_entry() uses xas_find_conflict()?

When used with a non-zero 'order', xas_find_conflict() will return
an entry whereas xas_load() might return a pointer to a node.
dax_lock_page() always uses a zero order, so they would always do the
same thing (xas_find_conflict() would be less efficient).