On 2022/4/20 5:36, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2022 at 11:05:49AM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> @@ -1797,6 +1797,17 @@ static int unuse_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>> + if (unlikely(!PageUptodate(page))) {
>> + pte_t pteval;
>> +
>> + dec_mm_counter(vma->vm_mm, MM_SWAPENTS);
>> + pteval = swp_entry_to_pte(make_swapin_error_entry(page));
>> + set_pte_at(vma->vm_mm, addr, pte, pteval);
>> + swap_free(entry);
>> + ret = 0;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> /* See do_swap_page() */
>> BUG_ON(!PageAnon(page) && PageMappedToDisk(page));
>> BUG_ON(PageAnon(page) && PageAnonExclusive(page));
>
> Totally off-topic, but.. today when I was looking at the unuse path I just
> found that the swp bits could have got lost for either soft-dirty and
> uffd-wp here? A quick patch attached.
Am I supposed to test-and-send this patch? The patch looks good to me except the
build error pointed out by kernel test robot.
>
> Maybe at some point we should start to have some special helpers for
> set_pte_at() when we're converting between present/non-present ptes, so as
> to make sure all these will always be taken care of properly.
That will be helpful. There are many places doing the similar thing.
>
Thanks!
