| 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: <b31b8638-8def-44a4-8f69-f14117ea6193@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 10:09:55 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, ying.huang@...el.com
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, 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 2024/8/1 17:20, Barry Song wrote:
> 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.
Sure. I tested it with my shmem swap patches, and it still works as
expected. Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists