Message-ID: <3d317ce9-2304-4361-adda-32abcc06e3dd@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 14:34:20 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Hugh Dickins
 <hughd@...gle.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
 Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>, Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>,
 Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
 Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] mm/shmem, swap: clean up swap entry splitting



On 2025/6/27 14:20, Kairui Song wrote:
> From: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
> 
> Instead of keeping different paths of splitting the entry and
> recalculating the swap entry and index, do it in one place.
> 
> Whenever swapin brought in a folio smaller than the entry, split the
> entry. And always recalculate the entry and index, in case it might
> read in a folio that's larger than the entry order. This removes
> duplicated code and function calls, and makes the code more robust.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
> ---
>   mm/shmem.c | 103 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------
>   1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> index f85a985167c5..5be9c905396e 100644
> --- a/mm/shmem.c
> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> @@ -2178,8 +2178,12 @@ static void shmem_set_folio_swapin_error(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
>   	swap_free_nr(swap, nr_pages);
>   }
>   
> -static int shmem_split_large_entry(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
> -				   swp_entry_t swap, gfp_t gfp)
> +/*
> + * Split an existing large swap entry. @index should point to one sub mapping
> + * slot within the entry @swap, this sub slot will be split into order 0.
> + */
> +static int shmem_split_swap_entry(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
> +				  swp_entry_t swap, gfp_t gfp)
>   {
>   	struct address_space *mapping = inode->i_mapping;
>   	XA_STATE_ORDER(xas, &mapping->i_pages, index, 0);
> @@ -2250,7 +2254,7 @@ static int shmem_split_large_entry(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
>   	if (xas_error(&xas))
>   		return xas_error(&xas);
>   
> -	return entry_order;
> +	return 0;
>   }
>   
>   /*
> @@ -2267,11 +2271,11 @@ static int shmem_swapin_folio(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
>   	struct address_space *mapping = inode->i_mapping;
>   	struct mm_struct *fault_mm = vma ? vma->vm_mm : NULL;
>   	struct shmem_inode_info *info = SHMEM_I(inode);
> +	int error, nr_pages, order, swap_order;
>   	struct swap_info_struct *si;
>   	struct folio *folio = NULL;
>   	bool skip_swapcache = false;
>   	swp_entry_t swap;
> -	int error, nr_pages, order, split_order;
>   
>   	VM_BUG_ON(!*foliop || !xa_is_value(*foliop));
>   	swap = radix_to_swp_entry(*foliop);
> @@ -2321,70 +2325,43 @@ static int shmem_swapin_folio(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
>   				goto failed;
>   		}
>   
> -		/*
> -		 * Now swap device can only swap in order 0 folio, then we
> -		 * should split the large swap entry stored in the pagecache
> -		 * if necessary.
> -		 */
> -		split_order = shmem_split_large_entry(inode, index, swap, gfp);
> -		if (split_order < 0) {
> -			error = split_order;
> -			goto failed;
> -		}
> -
> -		/*
> -		 * If the large swap entry has already been split, it is
> -		 * necessary to recalculate the new swap entry based on
> -		 * the old order alignment.
> -		 */
> -		if (split_order > 0) {
> -			pgoff_t offset = index - round_down(index, 1 << split_order);
> -
> -			swap = swp_entry(swp_type(swap), swp_offset(swap) + offset);
> -		}
> -
>   		/* Here we actually start the io */
>   		folio = shmem_swapin_cluster(swap, gfp, info, index);
>   		if (!folio) {
>   			error = -ENOMEM;
>   			goto failed;
>   		}
> -	} else if (order > folio_order(folio)) {
> -		/*
> -		 * Swap readahead may swap in order 0 folios into swapcache
> -		 * asynchronously, while the shmem mapping can still stores
> -		 * large swap entries. In such cases, we should split the
> -		 * large swap entry to prevent possible data corruption.
> -		 */
> -		split_order = shmem_split_large_entry(inode, index, swap, gfp);
> -		if (split_order < 0) {
> -			folio_put(folio);
> -			folio = NULL;
> -			error = split_order;
> -			goto failed;
> -		}
> -
> -		/*
> -		 * If the large swap entry has already been split, it is
> -		 * necessary to recalculate the new swap entry based on
> -		 * the old order alignment.
> -		 */
> -		if (split_order > 0) {
> -			pgoff_t offset = index - round_down(index, 1 << split_order);
> -
> -			swap = swp_entry(swp_type(swap), swp_offset(swap) + offset);
> -		}
> -	} else if (order < folio_order(folio)) {
> -		swap.val = round_down(swap.val, 1 << folio_order(folio));
>   	}
>   
>   alloced:
> +	/*
> +	 * We need to split an existing large entry if swapin brought in a
> +	 * smaller folio due to various of reasons.
> +	 *
> +	 * And worth noting there is a special case: if there is a smaller
> +	 * cached folio that covers @swap, but not @index (it only covers
> +	 * first few sub entries of the large entry, but @index points to
> +	 * later parts), the swap cache lookup will still see this folio,
> +	 * And we need to split the large entry here. Later checks will fail,
> +	 * as it can't satisfy the swap requirement, and we will retry
> +	 * the swapin from beginning.
> +	 */
> +	swap_order = folio_order(folio);

Nit: 'swap_order' is confusing, and can you just use folio_order() or a 
btter name?

> +	if (order > swap_order) {
> +		error = shmem_split_swap_entry(inode, index, swap, gfp);
> +		if (error)
> +			goto failed_nolock;
> +	}
> +
> +	index = round_down(index, 1 << swap_order);
> +	swap.val = round_down(swap.val, 1 << swap_order);

The round_down() of index and swap value here may cause 
shmem_add_to_page_cache() to fail to insert a new folio, because the 
swap value stored at that index in the shmem mapping does not match, 
leading to another swapin page fault for correction.

For example, shmem stores a large swap entry of order 4 in the range of 
index 0-64. When a swapin fault occurs at index = 3, with swap.val = 
0x4000, if a split happens and this round_down() logic is applied, then 
index = 3, swap.val = 0x4000. However, the actual swap.val should be 
0x4003 stored in the shmem mapping. This would cause another swapin fault.

I still prefer my original alignment method, and do you find this will 
cause any issues?

"
if (split_order > 0) {
	pgoff_t offset = index - round_down(index, 1 << split_order);

	swap = swp_entry(swp_type(swap), swp_offset(swap) + offset);
}
"

> +
>   	/* We have to do this with folio locked to prevent races */
>   	folio_lock(folio);
>   	if ((!skip_swapcache && !folio_test_swapcache(folio)) ||
>   	    folio->swap.val != swap.val) {
>   		error = -EEXIST;
> -		goto unlock;
> +		goto failed_unlock;
>   	}
>   	if (!folio_test_uptodate(folio)) {
>   		error = -EIO;
> @@ -2405,8 +2382,7 @@ static int shmem_swapin_folio(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
>   			goto failed;
>   	}
>   
> -	error = shmem_add_to_page_cache(folio, mapping,
> -					round_down(index, nr_pages),
> +	error = shmem_add_to_page_cache(folio, mapping, index,
>   					swp_to_radix_entry(swap), gfp);
>   	if (error)
>   		goto failed;
> @@ -2417,8 +2393,8 @@ static int shmem_swapin_folio(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
>   		folio_mark_accessed(folio);
>   
>   	if (skip_swapcache) {
> +		swapcache_clear(si, folio->swap, folio_nr_pages(folio));
>   		folio->swap.val = 0;
> -		swapcache_clear(si, swap, nr_pages);
>   	} else {
>   		delete_from_swap_cache(folio);
>   	}
> @@ -2434,13 +2410,16 @@ static int shmem_swapin_folio(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
>   	if (error == -EIO)
>   		shmem_set_folio_swapin_error(inode, index, folio, swap,
>   					     skip_swapcache);
> -unlock:
> -	if (skip_swapcache)
> -		swapcache_clear(si, swap, folio_nr_pages(folio));
> -	if (folio) {
> +failed_unlock:
> +	if (folio)
>   		folio_unlock(folio);
> -		folio_put(folio);
> +failed_nolock:
> +	if (skip_swapcache) {
> +		swapcache_clear(si, folio->swap, folio_nr_pages(folio));
> +		folio->swap.val = 0;
>   	}
> +	if (folio)
> +		folio_put(folio);
>   	put_swap_device(si);
>   	return error;
>   }

Powered by blists - more mailing lists