From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756913AbbLBWJO (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:09:14 -0500
Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:48784 "EHLO mga02.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755427AbbLBWJL (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:09:11 -0500
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,375,1444719600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="699061766"
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Fix mmap MAP_POPULATE for DAX pmd mapping
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
References: <1448309082-20851-1-git-send-email-toshi.kani@hpe.com>
 <CAPcyv4gY2SZZwiv9DtjRk4js3gS=vf4YLJvmsMJ196aps4ZHcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1449022764.31589.24.camel@hpe.com>
 <CAPcyv4hzjMkwx3AA+f5Y9zfp-egjO-b5+_EU7cGO5BGMQaiN_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <1449078237.31589.30.camel@hpe.com>
 <CAPcyv4ikJ73nzQTCOfnBRThkv=rZGPM76S7=6O3LSB4kQBeEpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPcyv4j1vA6eAtjsE=kGKeF1EqWWfR+NC7nUcRpfH_8MRqpM8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1449084362.31589.37.camel@hpe.com>
 <CAPcyv4jt7JmWCgcsd=p32M322sCyaar4Pj-k+F446XGZvzrO8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1449086521.31589.39.camel@hpe.com> <1449087125.31589.45.camel@hpe.com>
 <CAPcyv4hvX_s3xN9UZ69v7npOhWVFehfGDPZG1MsDmKWBk4Gq1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1449092226.31589.50.camel@hpe.com>
 <CAPcyv4jtVkptiFhiFP=2KXvDXs=Tw17pF=249sLj2fw-0vgsEg@mail.gmail.com>
 <565F69FE.601@intel.com>
 <CAPcyv4i0n=2+WMACVumvMHsXZ7xzBuzvO6WA9H06N_-S=s3ibQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hpe.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>,
        Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>, mauricio.porto@hpe.com,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Message-ID: <565F6C06.9060208@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 14:09:10 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4i0n=2+WMACVumvMHsXZ7xzBuzvO6WA9H06N_-S=s3ibQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 12/02/2015 02:03 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> >> Is pfn_valid() a reliable check?  It seems to be based on a max_pfn
>>> >> per node... what happens when pmem is located below that point.  I
>>> >> haven't been able to convince myself that we won't get false
>>> >> positives, but maybe I'm missing something.
>> >
>> > With sparsemem at least, it makes sure that you're looking at a valid
>> > _section_.  See the pfn_valid() at ~include/linux/mmzone.h:1222.
> At a minimum we would need to add "depends on SPARSEMEM" to "config FS_DAX_PMD".

Yeah, it seems like an awful layering violation.  But, sparsemem is
turned on everywhere (all the distros/users) that we care about, as far
as I know.