[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220131162940.210846-4-david@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:29:33 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Donald Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Liang Zhang <zhangliang5@...wei.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 3/9] mm: slightly clarify KSM logic in do_swap_page()
Let's make it clearer that KSM might only have to copy a page
in case we have a page in the swapcache, not if we allocated a fresh
page and bypassed the swapcache. While at it, add a comment why this is
usually necessary and merge the two swapcache conditions.
Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
---
mm/memory.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index 923165b4c27e..3c91294cca98 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -3615,21 +3615,29 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
goto out_release;
}
- /*
- * Make sure try_to_free_swap or reuse_swap_page or swapoff did not
- * release the swapcache from under us. The page pin, and pte_same
- * test below, are not enough to exclude that. Even if it is still
- * swapcache, we need to check that the page's swap has not changed.
- */
- if (unlikely((!PageSwapCache(page) ||
- page_private(page) != entry.val)) && swapcache)
- goto out_page;
-
- page = ksm_might_need_to_copy(page, vma, vmf->address);
- if (unlikely(!page)) {
- ret = VM_FAULT_OOM;
- page = swapcache;
- goto out_page;
+ if (swapcache) {
+ /*
+ * Make sure try_to_free_swap or reuse_swap_page or swapoff did
+ * not release the swapcache from under us. The page pin, and
+ * pte_same test below, are not enough to exclude that. Even if
+ * it is still swapcache, we need to check that the page's swap
+ * has not changed.
+ */
+ if (unlikely(!PageSwapCache(page) ||
+ page_private(page) != entry.val))
+ goto out_page;
+
+ /*
+ * KSM sometimes has to copy on read faults, for example, if
+ * page->index of !PageKSM() pages would be nonlinear inside the
+ * anon VMA -- PageKSM() is lost on actual swapout.
+ */
+ page = ksm_might_need_to_copy(page, vma, vmf->address);
+ if (unlikely(!page)) {
+ ret = VM_FAULT_OOM;
+ page = swapcache;
+ goto out_page;
+ }
}
cgroup_throttle_swaprate(page, GFP_KERNEL);
--
2.34.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists