[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkYnN23h0N3chqEu_DesSsOaFE6MTQ4Yw3eAZZb=ohWM4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 18:39:05 -0700
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
To: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V2 4/5] swap: remove get/put_swap_device() in __swap_duplicate()
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:09 AM Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>
> __swap_duplicate() is called by
>
> - swap_shmem_alloc(): the page lock of the swap cache is held.
>
> - copy_nonpresent_pte() -> swap_duplicate() and try_to_unmap_one() ->
> swap_duplicate(): the page table lock is held.
>
> - __read_swap_cache_async() -> swapcache_prepare(): enclosed with
> get/put_swap_device() in __read_swap_cache_async() already.
>
> So, it's safe to remove get/put_swap_device() in __swap_duplicate().
>
> Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
> Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
> Cc: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
> ---
> mm/swapfile.c | 5 +----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
> index e9cce775fb25..4dbaea64635d 100644
> --- a/mm/swapfile.c
> +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
> @@ -3264,9 +3264,7 @@ static int __swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry, unsigned char usage)
I would add a comment above this function stating that the caller
needs to provide protection against swapoff, and refer to the comment
above get_swap_device().
Otherwise, LGTM with David's comment.
Reviewed-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
> unsigned char has_cache;
> int err;
>
> - p = get_swap_device(entry);
> - if (!p)
> - return -EINVAL;
> + p = swp_swap_info(entry);
>
> offset = swp_offset(entry);
> ci = lock_cluster_or_swap_info(p, offset);
> @@ -3313,7 +3311,6 @@ static int __swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry, unsigned char usage)
>
> unlock_out:
> unlock_cluster_or_swap_info(p, ci);
> - put_swap_device(p);
> return err;
> }
>
> --
> 2.39.2
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists