On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 11:24:34AM -0300, Mauricio Faria de Oliveira wrote:
> Hi Andrew and Matthew,
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 5:00 PM Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)
> <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Change both callers and the worker function try_to_unmap_one().
> ...
> > diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> ...
> > @@ -1598,8 +1602,8 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > }
> >
> > /* MADV_FREE page check */
> > - if (!PageSwapBacked(page)) {
> > - if (!PageDirty(page)) {
> > + if (!folio_test_swapbacked(folio)) {
> > + if (!folio_test_dirty(folio)) {
> > /* Invalidate as we cleared the pte */
> > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range(mm,
> > address, address + PAGE_SIZE);
> > @@ -1608,11 +1612,11 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > - * If the page was redirtied, it cannot be
> > + * If the folio was redirtied, it cannot be
> > * discarded. Remap the page to page table.
> > */
> > set_pte_at(mm, address, pvmw.pte, pteval);
> > - SetPageSwapBacked(page);
> > + folio_set_swapbacked(folio);
> > ret = false;
> > page_vma_mapped_walk_done(&pvmw);
> > break;
> ...
>
> This conflicts with patch [1], currently in mmotm, and I'll send
> another version anyway.
> Should that patch be on top of these folio changes, or the other way around?
Andrew and I need to resolve conflicts between this series and other
patches in his tree. You don't need to worry about this.
> The latter would help w/ the stable backports that don't have folios
> yet, but I can
> send backports there as well; not a problem.
>
> Thanks,
>
> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220131230255.789059-1-mfo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [PATCH v3] mm: fix race between MADV_FREE reclaim and blkdev direct IO read
>
> --
> Mauricio Faria de Oliveira
>
