On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 20:15:54 +0100 David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 09.03.22 19:48, Yang Shi wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 8:33 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Let's make it clearer that KSM might only have to copy a page
> >> in case we have a page in the swapcache, not if we allocated a fresh
> >> page and bypassed the swapcache. While at it, add a comment why this is
> >> usually necessary and merge the two swapcache conditions.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> mm/memory.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> >> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> >> index 923165b4c27e..3c91294cca98 100644
> >> --- a/mm/memory.c
> >> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> >> @@ -3615,21 +3615,29 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> >> goto out_release;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - /*
> >> - * Make sure try_to_free_swap or reuse_swap_page or swapoff did not
> >
> > We could remove the reference to "reuse_swap_page", right?
> >
> Yes, I noticed this a couple of days ago as well and already have a
> patch prepared for that ("mm: adjust stale comment in do_swap_page()
> mentioning reuse_swap_page()" at
> https://github.com/davidhildenbrand/linux/commits/cow_fixes_part_3)
>
> If Andrew wants, we can fix that up directly before sending upstream or
> I'll simply include that patch when sending out part2 v2.
>
> (I want to avoid sending another series just for this)
Thanks, I did this. The same change plus gratuitous comment reflowing.
--- a/mm/memory.c~mm-slightly-clarify-ksm-logic-in-do_swap_page-fix
+++ a/mm/memory.c
@@ -3609,11 +3609,11 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault
if (swapcache) {
/*
- * Make sure try_to_free_swap or reuse_swap_page or swapoff did
- * not release the swapcache from under us. The page pin, and
- * pte_same test below, are not enough to exclude that. Even if
- * it is still swapcache, we need to check that the page's swap
- * has not changed.
+ * Make sure try_to_free_swap or swapoff did not release the
+ * swapcache from under us. The page pin, and pte_same test
+ * below, are not enough to exclude that. Even if it is still
+ * swapcache, we need to check that the page's swap has not
+ * changed.
*/
if (unlikely(!PageSwapCache(page) ||
page_private(page) != entry.val))
_
