On 20.04.22 08:15, Miaohe Lin wrote: > 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? > That should go into a separate patch. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
