| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20240801092014.41549-1-21cnbao@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 21:20:14 +1200
From: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
To: ying.huang@...el.com
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
chrisl@...nel.org,
david@...hat.com,
hannes@...xchg.org,
hughd@...gle.com,
kaleshsingh@...gle.com,
kasong@...cent.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
mhocko@...e.com,
minchan@...nel.org,
nphamcs@...il.com,
ryan.roberts@....com,
senozhatsky@...omium.org,
shakeel.butt@...ux.dev,
shy828301@...il.com,
surenb@...gle.com,
v-songbaohua@...o.com,
willy@...radead.org,
xiang@...nel.org,
yosryahmed@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: swap: add nr argument in swapcache_prepare and swapcache_clear to support large folios
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 2:50 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>
> Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 10:37 AM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:13 AM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 4:28 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> writes:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 4:14 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Hi, Barry,
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> writes:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Right now, swapcache_prepare() and swapcache_clear() supports one entry
> >> >> >> >> > only, to support large folios, we need to handle multiple swap entries.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > To optimize stack usage, we iterate twice in __swap_duplicate(): the
> >> >> >> >> > first time to verify that all entries are valid, and the second time
> >> >> >> >> > to apply the modifications to the entries.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Currently, we're using nr=1 for the existing users.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Reviewed-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
> >> >> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
> >> >> >> >> > ---
> >> >> >> >> > include/linux/swap.h | 4 +-
> >> >> >> >> > mm/memory.c | 6 +--
> >> >> >> >> > mm/swap.h | 5 ++-
> >> >> >> >> > mm/swap_state.c | 2 +-
> >> >> >> >> > mm/swapfile.c | 101 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> >> >> >> >> > 5 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
> >> >> >> >> > index ba7ea95d1c57..5b920fa2315b 100644
> >> >> >> >> > --- a/include/linux/swap.h
> >> >> >> >> > +++ b/include/linux/swap.h
> >> >> >> >> > @@ -480,7 +480,7 @@ extern int get_swap_pages(int n, swp_entry_t swp_entries[], int order);
> >> >> >> >> > extern int add_swap_count_continuation(swp_entry_t, gfp_t);
> >> >> >> >> > extern void swap_shmem_alloc(swp_entry_t);
> >> >> >> >> > extern int swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t);
> >> >> >> >> > -extern int swapcache_prepare(swp_entry_t);
> >> >> >> >> > +extern int swapcache_prepare(swp_entry_t entry, int nr);
> >> >> >> >> > extern void swap_free_nr(swp_entry_t entry, int nr_pages);
> >> >> >> >> > extern void swapcache_free_entries(swp_entry_t *entries, int n);
> >> >> >> >> > extern void free_swap_and_cache_nr(swp_entry_t entry, int nr);
> >> >> >> >> > @@ -554,7 +554,7 @@ static inline int swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t swp)
> >> >> >> >> > return 0;
> >> >> >> >> > }
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > -static inline int swapcache_prepare(swp_entry_t swp)
> >> >> >> >> > +static inline int swapcache_prepare(swp_entry_t swp, int nr)
> >> >> >> >> > {
> >> >> >> >> > return 0;
> >> >> >> >> > }
> >> >> >> >> > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> >> >> >> >> > index 833d2cad6eb2..b8675617a5e3 100644
> >> >> >> >> > --- a/mm/memory.c
> >> >> >> >> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> >> >> >> >> > @@ -4081,7 +4081,7 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> >> >> >> >> > * reusing the same entry. It's undetectable as
> >> >> >> >> > * pte_same() returns true due to entry reuse.
> >> >> >> >> > */
> >> >> >> >> > - if (swapcache_prepare(entry)) {
> >> >> >> >> > + if (swapcache_prepare(entry, 1)) {
> >> >> >> >> > /* Relax a bit to prevent rapid repeated page faults */
> >> >> >> >> > schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
> >> >> >> >> > goto out;
> >> >> >> >> > @@ -4387,7 +4387,7 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> >> >> >> >> > out:
> >> >> >> >> > /* Clear the swap cache pin for direct swapin after PTL unlock */
> >> >> >> >> > if (need_clear_cache)
> >> >> >> >> > - swapcache_clear(si, entry);
> >> >> >> >> > + swapcache_clear(si, entry, 1);
> >> >> >> >> > if (si)
> >> >> >> >> > put_swap_device(si);
> >> >> >> >> > return ret;
> >> >> >> >> > @@ -4403,7 +4403,7 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> >> >> >> >> > folio_put(swapcache);
> >> >> >> >> > }
> >> >> >> >> > if (need_clear_cache)
> >> >> >> >> > - swapcache_clear(si, entry);
> >> >> >> >> > + swapcache_clear(si, entry, 1);
> >> >> >> >> > if (si)
> >> >> >> >> > put_swap_device(si);
> >> >> >> >> > return ret;
> >> >> >> >> > diff --git a/mm/swap.h b/mm/swap.h
> >> >> >> >> > index baa1fa946b34..7c6330561d84 100644
> >> >> >> >> > --- a/mm/swap.h
> >> >> >> >> > +++ b/mm/swap.h
> >> >> >> >> > @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ void __delete_from_swap_cache(struct folio *folio,
> >> >> >> >> > void delete_from_swap_cache(struct folio *folio);
> >> >> >> >> > void clear_shadow_from_swap_cache(int type, unsigned long begin,
> >> >> >> >> > unsigned long end);
> >> >> >> >> > -void swapcache_clear(struct swap_info_struct *si, swp_entry_t entry);
> >> >> >> >> > +void swapcache_clear(struct swap_info_struct *si, swp_entry_t entry, int nr);
> >> >> >> >> > struct folio *swap_cache_get_folio(swp_entry_t entry,
> >> >> >> >> > struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr);
> >> >> >> >> > struct folio *filemap_get_incore_folio(struct address_space *mapping,
> >> >> >> >> > @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ static inline int swap_writepage(struct page *p, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> >> >> >> >> > return 0;
> >> >> >> >> > }
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > -static inline void swapcache_clear(struct swap_info_struct *si, swp_entry_t entry)
> >> >> >> >> > +static inline void swapcache_clear(struct swap_info_struct *si, swp_entry_t entry, int nr)
> >> >> >> >> > {
> >> >> >> >> > }
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > @@ -172,4 +172,5 @@ static inline unsigned int folio_swap_flags(struct folio *folio)
> >> >> >> >> > return 0;
> >> >> >> >> > }
> >> >> >> >> > #endif /* CONFIG_SWAP */
> >> >> >> >> > +
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> NITPICK: Is it necessary to add a blank line here? But I don't think a
> >> >> >> >> new version is necessary if this is the only change needed.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > No need to add a blank line; it was probably a mistake I made in Vim.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > #endif /* _MM_SWAP_H */
> >> >> >> >> > diff --git a/mm/swap_state.c b/mm/swap_state.c
> >> >> >> >> > index a1726e49a5eb..b06f2a054f5a 100644
> >> >> >> >> > --- a/mm/swap_state.c
> >> >> >> >> > +++ b/mm/swap_state.c
> >> >> >> >> > @@ -477,7 +477,7 @@ struct folio *__read_swap_cache_async(swp_entry_t entry, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> >> >> >> >> > /*
> >> >> >> >> > * Swap entry may have been freed since our caller observed it.
> >> >> >> >> > */
> >> >> >> >> > - err = swapcache_prepare(entry);
> >> >> >> >> > + err = swapcache_prepare(entry, 1);
> >> >> >> >> > if (!err)
> >> >> >> >> > break;
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
> >> >> >> >> > index 5f73a8553371..757d38a86f56 100644
> >> >> >> >> > --- a/mm/swapfile.c
> >> >> >> >> > +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
> >> >> >> >> > @@ -3363,7 +3363,7 @@ void si_swapinfo(struct sysinfo *val)
> >> >> >> >> > }
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > /*
> >> >> >> >> > - * Verify that a swap entry is valid and increment its swap map count.
> >> >> >> >> > + * Verify that nr swap entries are valid and increment their swap map counts.
> >> >> >> >> > *
> >> >> >> >> > * Returns error code in following case.
> >> >> >> >> > * - success -> 0
> >> >> >> >> > @@ -3373,60 +3373,77 @@ void si_swapinfo(struct sysinfo *val)
> >> >> >> >> > * - swap-cache reference is requested but the entry is not used. -> ENOENT
> >> >> >> >> > * - swap-mapped reference requested but needs continued swap count. -> ENOMEM
> >> >> >> >> > */
> >> >> >> >> > -static int __swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry, unsigned char usage)
> >> >> >> >> > +static int __swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry, unsigned char usage, int nr)
> >> >> >> >> > {
> >> >> >> >> > struct swap_info_struct *p;
> >> >> >> >> > struct swap_cluster_info *ci;
> >> >> >> >> > unsigned long offset;
> >> >> >> >> > unsigned char count;
> >> >> >> >> > unsigned char has_cache;
> >> >> >> >> > - int err;
> >> >> >> >> > + int err, i;
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > p = swp_swap_info(entry);
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > offset = swp_offset(entry);
> >> >> >> >> > + VM_WARN_ON(nr > SWAPFILE_CLUSTER - offset % SWAPFILE_CLUSTER);
> >> >> >> >> > ci = lock_cluster_or_swap_info(p, offset);
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > - count = p->swap_map[offset];
> >> >> >> >> > + err = 0;
> >> >> >> >> > + for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
> >> >> >> >> > + count = p->swap_map[offset + i];
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > - /*
> >> >> >> >> > - * swapin_readahead() doesn't check if a swap entry is valid, so the
> >> >> >> >> > - * swap entry could be SWAP_MAP_BAD. Check here with lock held.
> >> >> >> >> > - */
> >> >> >> >> > - if (unlikely(swap_count(count) == SWAP_MAP_BAD)) {
> >> >> >> >> > - err = -ENOENT;
> >> >> >> >> > - goto unlock_out;
> >> >> >> >> > - }
> >> >> >> >> > + /*
> >> >> >> >> > + * swapin_readahead() doesn't check if a swap entry is valid, so the
> >> >> >> >> > + * swap entry could be SWAP_MAP_BAD. Check here with lock held.
> >> >> >> >> > + */
> >> >> >> >> > + if (unlikely(swap_count(count) == SWAP_MAP_BAD)) {
> >> >> >> >> > + err = -ENOENT;
> >> >> >> >> > + goto unlock_out;
> >> >> >> >> > + }
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > - has_cache = count & SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
> >> >> >> >> > - count &= ~SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
> >> >> >> >> > - err = 0;
> >> >> >> >> > + has_cache = count & SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
> >> >> >> >> > + count &= ~SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > - if (usage == SWAP_HAS_CACHE) {
> >> >> >> >> > + if (usage == SWAP_HAS_CACHE) {
> >> >> >> >> > + /* set SWAP_HAS_CACHE if there is no cache and entry is used */
> >> >> >> >> > + if (!has_cache && count)
> >> >> >> >> > + continue;
> >> >> >> >> > + else if (has_cache) /* someone else added cache */
> >> >> >> >> > + err = -EEXIST;
> >> >> >> >> > + else /* no users remaining */
> >> >> >> >> > + err = -ENOENT;
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > - /* set SWAP_HAS_CACHE if there is no cache and entry is used */
> >> >> >> >> > - if (!has_cache && count)
> >> >> >> >> > - has_cache = SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
> >> >> >> >> > - else if (has_cache) /* someone else added cache */
> >> >> >> >> > - err = -EEXIST;
> >> >> >> >> > - else /* no users remaining */
> >> >> >> >> > - err = -ENOENT;
> >> >> >> >> > + } else if (count || has_cache) {
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > - } else if (count || has_cache) {
> >> >> >> >> > + if ((count & ~COUNT_CONTINUED) < SWAP_MAP_MAX)
> >> >> >> >> > + continue;
> >> >> >> >> > + else if ((count & ~COUNT_CONTINUED) > SWAP_MAP_MAX)
> >> >> >> >> > + err = -EINVAL;
> >> >> >> >> > + else if (swap_count_continued(p, offset + i, count))
> >> >> >> >> > + continue;
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> IIUC, this will make the change to swap map directly instead of
> >> >> >> >> verification. If the verification failed for some entry later, the
> >> >> >> >> count will be wrong? Or I missed something?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > To avoid using a bitmap or a larger stack, we actually verify during
> >> >> >> > the first iteration.
> >> >> >> > This ensures that by the second iteration, we can safely commit the
> >> >> >> > modification.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I actually put some words in the changelog :-)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > To optimize stack usage, we iterate twice in __swap_duplicate(): the
> >> >> >> > first time to verify that all entries are valid, and the second time
> >> >> >> > to apply the modifications to the entries.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes, I have seen it and I think that it is a good strategy.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But, IIUC, swap_count_continued() will change the higher bits of the
> >> >> >> swap_map instead of verifying. Or, my understanding is wrong?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ying, your understanding is 100% correct. but the code also has nothing
> >> >> > broken. we didn't extend swap_duplicate() to have argument nr,
> >> >> > so all users which can set usage=1 will definitely have nr=1.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > int swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry)
> >> >> > {
> >> >> > int err = 0;
> >> >> >
> >> >> > while (!err && __swap_duplicate(entry, 1, 1) == -ENOMEM)
> >> >> > err = add_swap_count_continuation(entry, GFP_ATOMIC);
> >> >> > return err;
> >> >> > }
> >> >>
> >> >> I understand that we don't have requirements to support "usage == 1 &&
> >> >> nr > 1" case for __swap_duplicate() at least for now.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Maybe I can add a VM_WARN_ON to warn those people who might
> >> >> > want to extend swap_duplicate()? in that case, things could be quite
> >> >> > tricky.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --- a/mm/swapfile.c
> >> >> > +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
> >> >> > @@ -3386,6 +3386,7 @@ static int __swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry,
> >> >> > unsigned char usage, int nr)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > offset = swp_offset(entry);
> >> >> > VM_WARN_ON(nr > SWAPFILE_CLUSTER - offset % SWAPFILE_CLUSTER);
> >> >> > + VM_WARN_ON(usage == 1 && nr > 1);
> >> >> > ci = lock_cluster_or_swap_info(p, offset);
> >> >> >
> >> >> > err = 0;
> >> >>
> >> >> Please add this. And, I think that we need to make it explicit in patch
> >> >> description and comments to avoid potential confusing.
> >> >
> >> > cool. make sense to me. I will post something for Andrew to squash into.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> And, because it's hard to implement the verify and change strategy if
> >> >> "usage == 1". Can we only use that strategy for "usage ==
> >> >> SWAP_HAS_CACHE"?
> >> >
> >> > I believe Baolin also needs the case for shmem. I don't feel a strong
> >> > need to split two logics(1 and non-1) as the code will be quite ugly :-)
> >>
> >> Don't need to split like that, it could be something like
> >>
> >> for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
> >> if (usage == SWAP_HAS_CACHE) {
> >> /* Only verify for SWAP_HAS_CACHE */
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
> >> if (usage == SWAP_HAS_CACHE) {
> >> } else {
> >> /* Verify and change for usage == 1 */
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >
> > but we also have cases where nr can be > 1
> > __swap_duplicate(entry, SWAP_MAP_SHMEM, 1);
>
> If we can do verification for "usage == SWAP_MAP_SHMEM", we can add that
> in the first loop.
>
> That is, we only do verification in the first loop, not do committing.
> In the second loop, we can ignore verifying if we have done that in the
> first loop.
>
> IMHO, this make code easier to be understood.
Right. I believe the change below can help improve readability and also
clarify the swap_count_continued() case.
diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
index 2fa29bdec171..75a89ce18edc 100644
--- a/mm/swapfile.c
+++ b/mm/swapfile.c
@@ -3538,6 +3538,7 @@ static int __swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry, unsigned char usage, int nr)
offset = swp_offset(entry);
VM_WARN_ON(nr > SWAPFILE_CLUSTER - offset % SWAPFILE_CLUSTER);
+ VM_WARN_ON(usage == 1 && nr > 1);
ci = lock_cluster_or_swap_info(p, offset);
err = 0;
@@ -3564,17 +3565,9 @@ static int __swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry, unsigned char usage, int nr)
err = -EEXIST;
else /* no users remaining */
err = -ENOENT;
-
} else if (count || has_cache) {
-
- if ((count & ~COUNT_CONTINUED) < SWAP_MAP_MAX)
- continue;
- else if ((count & ~COUNT_CONTINUED) > SWAP_MAP_MAX)
+ if ((count & ~COUNT_CONTINUED) > SWAP_MAP_MAX)
err = -EINVAL;
- else if (swap_count_continued(p, offset + i, count))
- continue;
- else
- err = -ENOMEM;
} else
err = -ENOENT; /* unused swap entry */
@@ -3591,8 +3584,12 @@ static int __swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry, unsigned char usage, int nr)
has_cache = SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
else if ((count & ~COUNT_CONTINUED) < SWAP_MAP_MAX)
count += usage;
- else
+ else if (swap_count_continued(p, offset + i, count))
count = COUNT_CONTINUED;
+ else {
+ err = -ENOMEM;
+ goto unlock_out;
+ }
WRITE_ONCE(p->swap_map[offset + i], count | has_cache);
}
This makes the two iterations become:
for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
count = p->swap_map[offset + i];
/*
* swapin_readahead() doesn't check if a swap entry is valid, so the
* swap entry could be SWAP_MAP_BAD. Check here with lock held.
*/
if (unlikely(swap_count(count) == SWAP_MAP_BAD)) {
err = -ENOENT;
goto unlock_out;
}
has_cache = count & SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
count &= ~SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
if (usage == SWAP_HAS_CACHE) {
/* set SWAP_HAS_CACHE if there is no cache and entry is used */
if (!has_cache && count)
continue;
else if (has_cache) /* someone else added cache */
err = -EEXIST;
else /* no users remaining */
err = -ENOENT;
} else if (count || has_cache) {
if ((count & ~COUNT_CONTINUED) > SWAP_MAP_MAX)
err = -EINVAL;
} else
err = -ENOENT; /* unused swap entry */
if (err)
goto unlock_out;
}
for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
count = p->swap_map[offset + i];
has_cache = count & SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
count &= ~SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
if (usage == SWAP_HAS_CACHE)
has_cache = SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
else if ((count & ~COUNT_CONTINUED) < SWAP_MAP_MAX)
count += usage;
else if (swap_count_continued(p, offset + i, count))
count = COUNT_CONTINUED;
else {
err = -ENOMEM;
goto unlock_out;
}
WRITE_ONCE(p->swap_map[offset + i], count | has_cache);
}
Ying, do you feel more satisfied with the version above
compared to the code in mm-unstable?
Baolin, I'd also appreciate it if you could re-test your
shmem case if Ying is okay with the enhancement above.
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > + else
> >> >> >> >> > + err = -ENOMEM;
> >> >> >> >> > + } else
> >> >> >> >> > + err = -ENOENT; /* unused swap entry */
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > - if ((count & ~COUNT_CONTINUED) < SWAP_MAP_MAX)
> >> >> >> >> > + if (err)
> >> >> >> >> > + goto unlock_out;
> >> >> >> >> > + }
> >> >> >> >> > +
> >> >> >> >> > + for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
> >> >> >> >> > + count = p->swap_map[offset + i];
> >> >> >> >> > + has_cache = count & SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
> >> >> >> >> > + count &= ~SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
> >> >> >> >> > +
> >> >> >> >> > + if (usage == SWAP_HAS_CACHE)
> >> >> >> >> > + has_cache = SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
> >> >> >> >> > + else if ((count & ~COUNT_CONTINUED) < SWAP_MAP_MAX)
> >> >> >> >> > count += usage;
> >> >> >> >> > - else if ((count & ~COUNT_CONTINUED) > SWAP_MAP_MAX)
> >> >> >> >> > - err = -EINVAL;
> >> >> >> >> > - else if (swap_count_continued(p, offset, count))
> >> >> >> >> > - count = COUNT_CONTINUED;
> >> >> >> >> > else
> >> >> >> >> > - err = -ENOMEM;
> >> >> >> >> > - } else
> >> >> >> >> > - err = -ENOENT; /* unused swap entry */
> >> >> >> >> > + count = COUNT_CONTINUED;
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > - if (!err)
> >> >> >> >> > - WRITE_ONCE(p->swap_map[offset], count | has_cache);
> >> >> >> >> > + WRITE_ONCE(p->swap_map[offset + i], count | has_cache);
> >> >> >> >> > + }
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > unlock_out:
> >> >> >> >> > unlock_cluster_or_swap_info(p, ci);
> >> >> >> >> > @@ -3439,7 +3456,7 @@ static int __swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry, unsigned char usage)
> >> >> >> >> > */
> >> >> >> >> > void swap_shmem_alloc(swp_entry_t entry)
> >> >> >> >> > {
> >> >> >> >> > - __swap_duplicate(entry, SWAP_MAP_SHMEM);
> >> >> >> >> > + __swap_duplicate(entry, SWAP_MAP_SHMEM, 1);
> >> >> >> >> > }
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > /*
> >> >> >> >> > @@ -3453,29 +3470,29 @@ int swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry)
> >> >> >> >> > {
> >> >> >> >> > int err = 0;
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > - while (!err && __swap_duplicate(entry, 1) == -ENOMEM)
> >> >> >> >> > + while (!err && __swap_duplicate(entry, 1, 1) == -ENOMEM)
> >> >> >> >> > err = add_swap_count_continuation(entry, GFP_ATOMIC);
> >> >> >> >> > return err;
> >> >> >> >> > }
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > /*
> >> >> >> >> > - * @entry: swap entry for which we allocate swap cache.
> >> >> >> >> > + * @entry: first swap entry from which we allocate nr swap cache.
> >> >> >> >> > *
> >> >> >> >> > - * Called when allocating swap cache for existing swap entry,
> >> >> >> >> > + * Called when allocating swap cache for existing swap entries,
> >> >> >> >> > * This can return error codes. Returns 0 at success.
> >> >> >> >> > * -EEXIST means there is a swap cache.
> >> >> >> >> > * Note: return code is different from swap_duplicate().
> >> >> >> >> > */
> >> >> >> >> > -int swapcache_prepare(swp_entry_t entry)
> >> >> >> >> > +int swapcache_prepare(swp_entry_t entry, int nr)
> >> >> >> >> > {
> >> >> >> >> > - return __swap_duplicate(entry, SWAP_HAS_CACHE);
> >> >> >> >> > + return __swap_duplicate(entry, SWAP_HAS_CACHE, nr);
> >> >> >> >> > }
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > -void swapcache_clear(struct swap_info_struct *si, swp_entry_t entry)
> >> >> >> >> > +void swapcache_clear(struct swap_info_struct *si, swp_entry_t entry, int nr)
> >> >> >> >> > {
> >> >> >> >> > unsigned long offset = swp_offset(entry);
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > - cluster_swap_free_nr(si, offset, 1, SWAP_HAS_CACHE);
> >> >> >> >> > + cluster_swap_free_nr(si, offset, nr, SWAP_HAS_CACHE);
> >> >> >> >> > }
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > struct swap_info_struct *swp_swap_info(swp_entry_t entry)
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> >> Best Regards,
> >> >> >> >> Huang, Ying
> >> >> >> >
> >> >
Thanks
Barry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists