On 2022/4/21 21:13, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 21.04.22 14:53, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> This is observed by code review only but not any real report.
>>
>> When we turn off swapping we could have lost the bits stored in the swap
>> ptes. The new rmap-exclusive bit is fine since that turned into a page
>> flag, but not for soft-dirty and uffd-wp. Add them.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> mm/swapfile.c | 12 +++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
>> index 95b63f69f388..332ccfc76142 100644
>> --- a/mm/swapfile.c
>> +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
>> @@ -1783,7 +1783,7 @@ static int unuse_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
>> {
>> struct page *swapcache;
>> spinlock_t *ptl;
>> - pte_t *pte;
>> + pte_t *pte, new_pte;
>> int ret = 1;
>>
>> swapcache = page;
>> @@ -1832,8 +1832,14 @@ static int unuse_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
>> page_add_new_anon_rmap(page, vma, addr);
>> lru_cache_add_inactive_or_unevictable(page, vma);
>> }
>> - set_pte_at(vma->vm_mm, addr, pte,
>> - pte_mkold(mk_pte(page, vma->vm_page_prot)));
>> + new_pte = pte_mkold(mk_pte(page, vma->vm_page_prot));
>> + if (pte_swp_soft_dirty(*pte))
>> + new_pte = pte_mksoft_dirty(new_pte);
>> + if (pte_swp_uffd_wp(*pte)) {
>> + new_pte = pte_mkuffd_wp(new_pte);
>> + new_pte = pte_wrprotect(new_pte);
>
> The wrprotect shouldn't be necessary, we don't do a pte_mkwrite(). Note
> that in do_swap_page() we might have done a
> maybe_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(pte)), which is why the pte_wrprotect() is
> required there.
You're so smart. I happened to be referring to the code in do_swap_page. ;)
Now I see why pte_wrprotect() is only required there. Will remove it in the
next verison when there is enough feedback. Many thanks!
>
