On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 2:21 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 13.01.25 14:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 13.01.25 04:38, Barry Song wrote:
> >> From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> The refcount may be temporarily or long-term increased, but this does
> >> not change the fundamental nature of the folio already being lazy-
> >> freed. Therefore, we only reset 'swapbacked' when we are certain the
> >> folio is dirty and not droppable.
> >>
> >> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >
> > Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
Thanks!
>
> Ah, should this have a Fixes: ?
That makes sense to me.
>
> Because of a speculative reference, we might not reclaim MADV_FREE
> folios as we silently mark them as swapbacked again, which sounds fairly
> wrong.
>
I assume the tag should be applied to Mauricio's commit 6c8e2a256915a2 ("mm:
fix race between MADV_FREE reclaim and blkdev direct IO read") and also
Mauricio is CC'ed.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
Thanks
Barry
