[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAF8kJuOyck_4bsy1=Ek2MFADfj9p09_+aQ+59-0NtpSjNHuNGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 14:55:46 -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, Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/15] mm/shmem, swap: remove redundant error handling
for replacing folio
On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 9:02 AM Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com> wrote:
>
> From: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
>
> Shmem may replace a folio in the swap cache if the cached one doesn't
> fit the swapin's GFP zone. When doing so, shmem has already double
> checked that the swap cache folio is locked, still has the swap cache
> flag set, and contains the wanted swap entry. So it is impossible to
> fail due to an XArray mismatch. There is even a comment for that.
>
> Delete the defensive error handling path, and add a WARN_ON instead:
> if that happened, something has broken the basic principle of how the
> swap cache works, we should catch and fix that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Acked-by: Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>
Chris
> ---
> mm/shmem.c | 32 +++++++-------------------------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> index 077744a9e9da..dc17717e5631 100644
> --- a/mm/shmem.c
> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> @@ -2121,35 +2121,17 @@ static int shmem_replace_folio(struct folio **foliop, gfp_t gfp,
> /* Swap cache still stores N entries instead of a high-order entry */
> xa_lock_irq(&swap_mapping->i_pages);
> for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
> - void *item = xas_load(&xas);
> -
> - if (item != old) {
> - error = -ENOENT;
> - break;
> - }
> -
> - xas_store(&xas, new);
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(xas_store(&xas, new) != old);
> xas_next(&xas);
> }
> - if (!error) {
> - mem_cgroup_replace_folio(old, new);
> - shmem_update_stats(new, nr_pages);
> - shmem_update_stats(old, -nr_pages);
> - }
> +
> + mem_cgroup_replace_folio(old, new);
> + shmem_update_stats(new, nr_pages);
> + shmem_update_stats(old, -nr_pages);
> xa_unlock_irq(&swap_mapping->i_pages);
>
> - if (unlikely(error)) {
> - /*
> - * Is this possible? I think not, now that our callers
> - * check both the swapcache flag and folio->private
> - * after getting the folio lock; but be defensive.
> - * Reverse old to newpage for clear and free.
> - */
> - old = new;
> - } else {
> - folio_add_lru(new);
> - *foliop = new;
> - }
> + folio_add_lru(new);
> + *foliop = new;
>
> folio_clear_swapcache(old);
> old->private = NULL;
> --
> 2.51.0
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists