On 2022/4/20 8:25, Alistair Popple wrote: > Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 2022/4/19 15:53, Alistair Popple wrote: >>> Also in madvise_free_pte_range() you could just remove the swap entry as it's no >>> longer needed. >>> >> >> This swap entry will be removed in madvise_dontneed_single_vma(). >> And in madvise_free_pte_range(), we may need to keep it as same as >> hwpoison entry. Or am I supposed to remove it even if hwpoison entry >> is reused later? > > Why would we need to keep it for MADV_FREE though? It only works on private > anonymous memory, and once the MADV_FREE operation has succeeded callers can > expect they might get zero-fill pages if accessing the memory again. Therefore > it should be safe to delete the entry. I think that applies equally to a > hwpoison entry too - there's no reason to kill the process if it has called > MADV_FREE on the range. I tend to agree. We can drop the swapin error entry and hwpoison entry when MADV_FREE is called. Should I squash these into the current patch or a separate one is preferred? Thanks for your suggestion! > >> >> Thanks! >> >>> Alistair Popple <apopple@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>> >> ...
