On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 02:11:27PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Nov 2018, Yu Zhao wrote:
> >
> > > We used to have a single swap address space with swp_entry_t.val
> > > as its radix tree index. This is not the case anymore. Now Each
> > > swp_type() has its own address space and should use swp_offset()
> > > as radix tree index.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > This fix is a great find, thank you! But completely mis-described!
>
> Yes, now I remember making swap offset as key was done long after per
> swap device radix tree.
>
> > And could you do a smaller patch, keeping swap_index, that can go to
> > stable without getting into trouble with the recent xarrifications?
> >
> > Fixes: bde05d1ccd51 ("shmem: replace page if mapping excludes its zone")
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 3.5+
> >
> > Seems shmem_replace_page() has been wrong since the day I wrote it:
> > good enough to work on swap "type" 0, which is all most people ever use
> > (especially those few who need shmem_replace_page() at all), but broken
> > once there are any non-0 swp_type bits set in the higher order bits.
>
> But you did get it right when you wrote the function, which was before
> the per swap device radix tree. so
> Fixes: f6ab1f7f6b2d ("mm, swap: use offset of swap entry as key of swap cache")
> looks good?
Oh, you're right, thank you. Yes, the fix is to that one, in 4.9 onwards.
I don't much like my original use of the name "swap_index", when it was
not the index in a swapfile (though it was the index in the radix tree);
but it will become a correct name with your patch.
Though Matthew Wilcox seems to want us to avoid saying "radix tree"...
Hugh
