Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:1d13:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id pp19csp1306556pxb; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 06:10:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz58YrAiLfc2CFtKTnN3BUEMExwx+QJ+YsSIN5R33w4/aiuACpqaJpYOKPfZTe6B9LXO4Z+ X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:2317:: with SMTP id l23mr9876490eda.265.1630069801652; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 06:10:01 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1630069801; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=X4ES12cM6vUYLOInzBorbysUqt59jjI2gYUWxNYCSV1OkPDyx+d5p7HMIADm21M0PV I8GK2yiOKYcTtDvVf02oUFARSMghQKy355ChTXrH4YhPwek1ZdJxckohOnx0nmUQxkqb RRCmNbDQuDoqNjIMMmmxeK/Pk7dwsT5iZAI1m+m+NzHBidTQCMDZQAxkthlDDczADS+t nSwvSig0FcSlS+Wlxr3LlB7h4IBk6/L+IVoPAPlNZy1NHExgSo/zJAO6zDtdFlJ9KfrY MODmGLYTmpg/27d8DnVZ1PnKdr3/YF810VzDwF0IKrpnJNNTmI0X+Y41jPrk1c4OnPNw +cyg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:cc:to :subject:ironport-hdrordr; bh=8QbG25zu/rUyqzk1a3SY1HhujktDEVU3OJnUHcBk304=; b=d8oKjjygsGPXb3ECkBibTIjdDdu1XO37HaF/bwdVLDtaPOB3pbgj7RpRBD6eKcKdLC 9qZb1NTmSU6C2qIN9tpjR/DaJ/x2mk86hbEtcxXFAy3evexySHFsbLSSBH9Qi1tWwYj8 tp7/CD6QhtVN67ZbrJXt5fkr0zNpFgstn1e0DMT84VTkgGfmNvAWw4AANZNprvQYSQ/j 0hvwblPpqiW9nHdui4pHhISXpePYdQPEb5czJwCwXXwMZV1zZCCF4dkP/5vkjIFhNZxM /fNWLDt/G+DIKWTSQqO2ZLrVx/hNgIFdgoZsjxE1xv2aCApJgW38tUA3jzS6qXhWh40P pAtA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=fujitsu.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id lv10si6036041ejb.316.2021.08.27.06.09.29; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 06:10:01 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=fujitsu.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S245082AbhH0NGQ (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 27 Aug 2021 09:06:16 -0400 Received: from mail.cn.fujitsu.com ([183.91.158.132]:27744 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231271AbhH0NGP (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2021 09:06:15 -0400 IronPort-HdrOrdr: =?us-ascii?q?A9a23=3AYr0QVqmlqBQyAA+94pNQpu/8oSXpDfJJ3DAb?= =?us-ascii?q?v31ZSRFFG/Fw9vrPoB1173LJYVoqMk3I+urgBEDjexzhHPdOiOF7AV7LZniEhI?= =?us-ascii?q?LCFu1fBOXZrQHdJw=3D=3D?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,356,1620662400"; d="scan'208";a="113570550" Received: from unknown (HELO cn.fujitsu.com) ([10.167.33.5]) by heian.cn.fujitsu.com with ESMTP; 27 Aug 2021 21:05:23 +0800 Received: from G08CNEXMBPEKD04.g08.fujitsu.local (unknown [10.167.33.201]) by cn.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 881E54D0DC66; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 21:05:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from G08CNEXCHPEKD07.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.80) by G08CNEXMBPEKD04.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.23; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 21:05:23 +0800 Received: from [192.168.122.212] (10.167.226.45) by G08CNEXCHPEKD07.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.209) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.0.1497.23 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 21:05:23 +0800 Subject: Re: RDMA/rpma + fsdax(ext4) was broken since 36f30e486d To: Jason Gunthorpe , "lizhijian@fujitsu.com" CC: "nvdimm@lists.linux.dev" , Yishai Hadas , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "yangx.jy@fujitsu.com" References: <8b2514bb-1d4b-48bb-a666-85e6804fbac0@cn.fujitsu.com> <68169bc5-075f-8260-eedc-80fdf4b0accd@cn.fujitsu.com> <20210806014559.GM543798@ziepe.ca> <10c4bead-c778-8794-f916-80bf7ba3a56b@fujitsu.com> <20210827121034.GG1200268@ziepe.ca> From: "Li, Zhijian" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 21:05:21 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210827121034.GG1200268@ziepe.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-yoursite-MailScanner-ID: 881E54D0DC66.AD63D X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-yoursite-MailScanner-From: lizhijian@fujitsu.com X-Spam-Status: No Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org on 2021/8/27 20:10, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 08:15:40AM +0000, lizhijian@fujitsu.com wrote: >> i looked over the change-log of hmm_vma_handle_pte(), and found that before >> 4055062 ("mm/hmm: add missing call to hmm_pte_need_fault in HMM_PFN_SPECIAL handling") >> >> hmm_vma_handle_pte() will not check pte_special(pte) if pte_devmap(pte) is true. >> >> when we reached >> "if (pte_special(pte) && !is_zero_pfn(pte_pfn(pte))) {" >> the pte have already presented and its pte's flag already fulfilled the request flags. >> >> >> My question is that >> Per https://01.org/blogs/dave/2020/linux-consumption-x86-page-table-bits, >> pte_devmap(pte) and pte_special(pte) could be both true in fsdax user case, right ? > How? what code creates that? > > I see: > > insert_pfn(): > /* Ok, finally just insert the thing.. */ > if (pfn_t_devmap(pfn)) > entry = pte_mkdevmap(pfn_t_pte(pfn, prot)); > else > entry = pte_mkspecial(pfn_t_pte(pfn, prot)); > > So what code path ends up setting both bits?  pte_mkdevmap() will set both _PAGE_SPECIAL | PAGE_DEVMAP  395 static inline pte_t pte_mkdevmap(pte_t pte)  396 {  397         return pte_set_flags(pte, _PAGE_SPECIAL|_PAGE_DEVMAP);  398 } below is a calltrace example [  400.728559] Call Trace: [  400.731595] dump_stack+0x6d/0x8b [  400.735536] insert_pfn+0x16c/0x180 [  400.739596] __vm_insert_mixed+0x84/0xc0 [  400.744144] dax_iomap_pte_fault+0x845/0x870 [  400.749089] ext4_dax_huge_fault+0x171/0x1e0 [  400.754096] __do_fault+0x31/0xe0 [  400.758090]  ? pmd_devmap_trans_unstable+0x37/0x90 [  400.763541] handle_mm_fault+0x11b1/0x1680 [  400.768260] exc_page_fault+0x2f4/0x570 [  400.772788]  ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x8/0x30 [  400.777539]  asm_exc_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 So is my previous change reasonable ? Thanks Zhijian