Message-ID: <CACePvbUrxe1ynqKpuaaU3DfEO8UHwiFgOdVv2OWvxs2Eiz6_Wg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2025 10:17:20 -0700
From: Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>
To: Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>, 
	Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, 
	Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, 
	Ying Huang <ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, 
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>, 
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] mm, swap: always lock and check the swap cache folio
 before use

On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 8:16 AM Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com> wrote:
> > So the missing readahead stats update behavior is the correct and
> > better behavior. I suggest you spit that out as a separate patch with
> > appropriate comments about it too. It is also easier to bisect the
> > commit if that kind of the subtle change which is considered safe
> > turns out causing a problem. Causing problem not happen very often but
> > it does happen before.
>
> Yes, I'm planning to split one patch out for the readahead change.

Ack.
>
> > > > >  /*
> > > > > - * Lookup a swap entry in the swap cache. A found folio will be returned
> > > > > - * unlocked and with its refcount incremented.
> > > > > + * swap_cache_get_folio - Lookup a swap entry in the swap cache.
> > > > >   *
> > > > > - * Caller must lock the swap device or hold a reference to keep it valid.
> > > > > + * A found folio will be returned unlocked and with its refcount increased.
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * Context: Caller must ensure @entry is valid and pin the swap device, also
> > > > Is the "pin" the same as  "lock the swap device or hold a reference"?
> > > > Not sure why you changed that comment to "pin".
> > >
> > > Yes it's the same thing. We don't lock the device though, the device
> > > can be pinned by the refcounf (get_swap_device) or locking anything
> > > that is referencing the device (locking PTL the a PTE that contains an
> > > swap entry pointing to the device, or locking a swap cache folio of a
> > > swap entry that points to the device). So I juse used the word "pin".
> > > I added some comments in mm/swap.h in later commits about what the
> > > "pin" means.
> >
> > In that case why not reuse the previous comment keeping "lock the swap
> > device or hold a reference" instead of "pin"?
>
> I'm worried that the sentence "lock the swap device" is kind of fuzzy,
> people may misunderstand that they need to hold si->lock. Actually
> they only need to hold si->user or lock anything. It's not wrong but
> kind of overkill.

What you just told me is a lot more useful than what was previously there.
Try to incorporate that into the comments. e.g. instead of "lock the
swap device", do "lock si->user or any other lock" or something like
that.

> > > > It seems to me that you want to add the comment for the return value check.
> > > > Is that it?
> > >
> > > Right, the caller has to check the folio before use, so I'm trying to
> > > document this convention.
> >
> > Again, I recommend reducing the unnecessary impact to the code, make
> > it more obvious what you did actually change. I spend quite some time
> > there trying to figure out what you are trying to accomplish with the
> > comments.
> >
> > > > > + * check the returned folio after locking it (e.g. folio_swap_contains).
> > > > >   */
> > > > >  struct folio *swap_cache_get_folio(swp_entry_t entry)
> > > > >  {
> > > > > @@ -338,7 +340,10 @@ struct folio *__read_swap_cache_async(swp_entry_t entry, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > > > >         for (;;) {
> > > > >                 int err;
> > > > >
> > > > > -               /* Check the swap cache in case the folio is already there */
> > > > > +               /*
> > > > > +                * Check the swap cache first, if a cached folio is found,
> > > > > +                * return it unlocked. The caller will lock and check it.
> > > > > +                */
> > > > >                 folio = swap_cache_get_folio(entry);
> > > > >                 if (folio)
> > > > >                         goto got_folio;
> > > > > diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
> > > > > index 4b8ab2cb49ca..12f2580ebe8d 100644
> > > > > --- a/mm/swapfile.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
> > > > > @@ -240,12 +240,12 @@ static int __try_to_reclaim_swap(struct swap_info_struct *si,
> > > > >          * Offset could point to the middle of a large folio, or folio
> > > > >          * may no longer point to the expected offset before it's locked.
> > > > >          */
> > > > > -       entry = folio->swap;
> > > > > -       if (offset < swp_offset(entry) || offset >= swp_offset(entry) + nr_pages) {
> > > > > +       if (!folio_contains_swap(folio, entry)) {
> > > > >                 folio_unlock(folio);
> > > > >                 folio_put(folio);
> > > > >                 goto again;
> > > > >         }
> > > > > +       entry = folio->swap;
> > > >
> > > > Can you also check this as well? The "goto again" will have entries
> > > > not assigned compared to previously.
> > > > Too late for me to think straight now if that will cause a problem.
> > >
> > > Oh, thanks for pointing this part out. This patch is correct, it's the
> > > original behaviour that is not correct. If the folio is no longer
> > > valid (the if check here failed), changing the `entry` value before
> > > could lead to a wrong look in the next attempt with `goto again`. That
> > > could lead to reclaim of an unrelated folio. It's a trivial issue
> > > though, only might marginally slow down the performance. Maybe I
> > > should make a seperate patch to fix this issue first in case anyone
> > > wants to backport it.
> >
> > Thanks for the explanation, please do split this subtle behavior
> > change out with appropriate commit messages documenting your change,
> > why it is safe and the better behavior.
> >
> > Thanks
>
> Thanks for the review, I think separating 2 patches (one for
> __try_to_reclaim_swap and one for readahead) out of this one should be
> good enough and make everyone happy, overall the code is still the
> same.

It is your call. I am happy to review them the same. It might take me
more time to reason about it and slightly delay your series merge to
mm-unstable, that is all.

Chris

Powered by blists - more mailing lists