On 2022/4/20 15:07, David Hildenbrand wrote: > 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. Will do. Many thanks for your suggestion. >
