[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z8HlvyKod4pbi6le@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 16:35:11 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
Cc: Liu Shixin <liushixin2@...wei.com>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>,
Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Charan Teja Kalla <quic_charante@...cinc.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/migrate: fix shmem xarray update during migration
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 10:42:19AM -0500, Zi Yan wrote:
> @@ -524,7 +525,11 @@ static int __folio_migrate_mapping(struct address_space *mapping,
> folio_set_swapcache(newfolio);
> newfolio->private = folio_get_private(folio);
> }
> - entries = nr;
> + /* shmem uses high-order entry */
> + if (shmem_mapping(mapping))
It's be cheaper to check folio_test_anon() here, right?
Also, how did this bug remain unnoticed for almost 4 years?
Our testing is terrible ;-(
> + entries = 1;
> + else
> + entries = nr;
> } else {
> VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_swapcache(folio), folio);
> entries = 1;
> --
> 2.47.2
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists