On 13.06.24 10:46, Barry Song wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 12:08 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx> The folio_test_anon(folio)==false case within do_swap_page() has been relocated to folio_add_new_anon_rmap(). Additionally, two other callers consistently pass anonymous folios. stack 1: remove_migration_pmd -> folio_add_anon_rmap_pmd -> __folio_add_anon_rmap stack 2: __split_huge_pmd_locked -> folio_add_anon_rmap_ptes -> __folio_add_anon_rmap __folio_add_anon_rmap() only needs to handle the cases folio_test_anon(folio)==true now.My team reported a case where swapoff() is calling folio_add_anon_rmap_pte *not* folio_add_anon_rmap_ptes with one new anon (!folio_test_anon(folio)). I will double check all folio_add_anon_rmap_pte() cases.
Right, swapoff() path is a bit special (e.g., we don't do any kind of batching on the swapoff() path).
But we should never get a new large anon folio there, or could that now happen?
-- Cheers, David / dhildenb
