linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/15] mm, swap: wrap swap cache replacement with a helper

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMgjq7B5tm=cCPM6DrrjWS1tkpHDwmQueMKEBKz=br7xAgOgjw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2025 22:49:35 +0800
From: Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, 
	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>, 
	Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, 
	Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/15] mm, swap: wrap swap cache replacement with a helper

On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 10:39 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 08.09.25 16:20, Kairui Song wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 8:35 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> +/**
> >>> + * __swap_cache_replace_folio - Replace a folio in the swap cache.
> >>> + * @mapping: Swap mapping address space.
> >>> + * @entry: The first swap entry that the new folio corresponds to.
> >>> + * @old: The old folio to be replaced.
> >>> + * @new: The new folio.
> >>> + *
> >>> + * Replace a existing folio in the swap cache with a new folio.
> >>> + *
> >>> + * Context: Caller must ensure both folios are locked, and lock the
> >>> + * swap address_space that holds the entries to be replaced.
> >>> + */
> >>> +void __swap_cache_replace_folio(struct address_space *mapping,
> >>> +                             swp_entry_t entry,
> >>> +                             struct folio *old, struct folio *new)
> >>
> >> Can't we just use "new->swap.val" directly and avoid passing in the
> >> entry, documenting that new->swap.val must be setup properly in advance?
> >
> > Thanks for the suggestion.
> >
> > I was thinking about the opposite. I think maybe it's better that the
> > caller never sets the new folio's entry value, so folio->swap is always
> > modified in mm/swap_state.c, and let __swap_cache_replace_folio set
> > new->swap, to make it easier to track the folio->swap
> > usage.
> >
> > This can be done easily for migration and shmem parts, the huge split
> > code will need a bit more cleanup.
>
> Right, but it's probably worth it.
>
> >
> > It's a trivial change I think. But letting __swap_cache_replace_folio
> > setup new's swap and flags may deduplicate some code. So I thought
> > maybe this can be better cleaned up later. So for now I just add a
> > debug check here that `entry == new->swap`.
> >
> > And the debug check does imply that we can just drop the entry params
> > in this patch, there will be no feature change.
>
> Well, the current API as you introduce it here is confusing, as it's not
> clear who is supposed to initialize what.
>
> So better to it cleanly right from the start.
>
> >
> >> Similarly, can't we obtain "mapping" from new?
> >
> > This is doable. But this patch is only an intermediate patch, next
> > commit will let the pass in ci instead. Of course the `ci` can be
> > retrieved from `entry` directly too, but it's the caller's
> > responsibility to lock the `ci`, so passing in a locked ci explicitly
> > might be more intuitive? Also might save a tiny bit of CPU time from
> > recalculating and load the `ci`.
>
> Well, no other swap_cache_* functions consumes an address space, right?

Right. I can drop it in this patch.

>
> --
> Cheers
>
> David / dhildenb
>