[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <62cd72d5-c072-d159-8de4-95cd0804c7db@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 19:03:02 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, 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>,
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] mm: slightly clarify KSM logic in do_swap_page()
On 1/31/22 17:29, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 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>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> ---
> 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);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists