On 16.08.23 20:41, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 03:33:30PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
My simple tests passed so far. If there isn't something obvious missing,
I can do more testing and send this as an official patch.
I think you missed one:
+++ b/mm/swapfile.c
@@ -1490,7 +1490,7 @@ int swp_swapcount(swp_entry_t entry)
page = vmalloc_to_page(p->swap_map + offset);
offset &= ~PAGE_MASK;
- VM_BUG_ON(page_private(page) != SWP_CONTINUED);
+ VM_BUG_ON(page_swap_entry(page).val != SWP_CONTINUED);
That falls under the "weird handling of SWP_CONTINUED using vmalloced
pages". So different user of page_private().
Note that we don't even store swap entries in there but extended swap
counts.
do {
page = list_next_entry(page, lru);
I'm not smart enough to understand the use of the one in
add_swap_count_continuation(). Maybe that also needs to be fixed?
No, that's independent of THP_SWAP, we're not working on the memmap of
the THP but some weird extension of swap counts.
Thanks for having a look!
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
