On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 08:53:48PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> 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 hwpoison entry and swapin error entry. There is no
> reason to kill the process if it has called MADV_FREE on the range.
>
> Suggested-by: Alistair Popple <apopple@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/madvise.c | 13 ++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c
> index 4d6592488b51..5f4537511532 100644
> --- a/mm/madvise.c
> +++ b/mm/madvise.c
> @@ -624,11 +624,14 @@ static int madvise_free_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
> swp_entry_t entry;
>
> entry = pte_to_swp_entry(ptent);
> - if (non_swap_entry(entry))
> - continue;
> - nr_swap--;
> - free_swap_and_cache(entry);
> - pte_clear_not_present_full(mm, addr, pte, tlb->fullmm);
Nitpick: IMHO you don't need to invert non_swap_entry() then it'll generate
a smaller diff, just add the new code above "continue".
> + if (!non_swap_entry(entry)) {
> + nr_swap--;
> + free_swap_and_cache(entry);
> + pte_clear_not_present_full(mm, addr, pte, tlb->fullmm);
> + } else if (is_hwpoison_entry(entry) ||
> + is_swapin_error_entry(entry)) {
> + pte_clear_not_present_full(mm, addr, pte, tlb->fullmm);
Since it's been discussed and you're reposting a new version anyway, why
not start with either reusing hwpoison or pte markers? Or do you think it
should be for future to drop the new swap entry again?
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
