Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] mm: support large folios swap-in for sync io devices

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 8:08 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 11:38:37 -0700 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > [   39.157954] RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
> > > [   39.158288] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000001
> > > [   39.158634] R13: 0000000000002b9a R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 00007ffd619d5518
> > > [   39.158998]  </TASK>
> > > [   39.159226] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
> > >
> > > After reverting this or Usama's "mm: store zero pages to be swapped
> > > out in a bitmap", the problem is gone. I think these two patches may
> > > have some conflict that needs to be resolved.
> >
> > Yup. I saw this conflict coming and specifically asked for this
> > warning to be added in Usama's patch to catch it [1]. It served its
> > purpose.
> >
> > Usama's patch does not handle large folio swapin, because at the time
> > it was written we didn't have it. We expected Usama's series to land
> > sooner than this one, so the warning was to make sure that this series
> > handles large folio swapin in the zeromap code. Now that they are both
> > in mm-unstable, we are gonna have to figure this out.
> >
> > I suspect Usama's patches are closer to land so it's better to handle
> > this in this series, but I will leave it up to Usama and
> > Chuanhua/Barry to figure this out :)

I believe handling this in swap-in might violate layer separation.
`swap_read_folio()` should be a reliable API to call, regardless of
whether `zeromap` is present. Therefore, the fix should likely be
within `zeromap` but not this `swap-in`. I’ll take a look at this with
Usama :-)

> >
> > [1]https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAJD7tkbpXjg00CRSrXU_pbaHwEaW1b3k8AQgu8y2PAh7EkTOug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> Thanks.  To unbreak -next I'll drop the two-patch series "mm: Ignite
> large folios swap-in support" for now.
>
> btw, next time can we please call it "enable large folios swap-in
> support"?  "ignite" doesn't make much sense here.

sure.
>

Thanks
Barry





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux