Re: [PATCH v3 09/27] mm: Introduce ZAP_FLAG_SKIP_SWAP
From: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>
Date: 2021-06-21 12:36:58
Also in:
lkml
On Friday, 28 May 2021 6:21:35 AM AEST Peter Xu wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Firstly, the comment in zap_pte_range() is misleading because it checks against details rather than check_mappings, so it's against what the code did. Meanwhile, it's confusing too on not explaining why passing in the details pointer would mean to skip all swap entries. New user of zap_details could very possibly miss this fact if they don't read deep until zap_pte_range() because there's no comment at zap_details talking about it at all, so swap entries could be errornously skipped without being noticed. This partly reverts 3e8715fdc03e ("mm: drop zap_details::check_swap_entries"), but introduce ZAP_FLAG_SKIP_SWAP flag, which means the opposite of previous "details" parameter: the caller should explicitly set this to skip swap entries, otherwise swap entries will always be considered (which is still the major case here). Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <redacted> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> --- include/linux/mm.h | 12 ++++++++++++ mm/memory.c | 8 +++++--- 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h index 52d3ef2ed753..1adf313a01fe 100644 --- a/include/linux/mm.h +++ b/include/linux/mm.h@@ -1723,6 +1723,8 @@ extern void user_shm_unlock(size_t, struct user_struct *); /* Whether to check page->mapping when zapping */ #define ZAP_FLAG_CHECK_MAPPING BIT(0) +/* Whether to skip zapping swap entries */ +#define ZAP_FLAG_SKIP_SWAP BIT(1) /* * Parameter block passed down to zap_pte_range in exceptional cases.@@ -1745,6 +1747,16 @@ zap_check_mapping_skip(struct zap_details *details, struct page *page) return details->zap_mapping != page_rmapping(page); } +/* Return true if skip swap entries, false otherwise */ +static inline bool +zap_skip_swap(struct zap_details *details)
Minor nit-pick but imho it would be nice if the naming was consistent between this and check mapping. Ie. zap_skip_swap()/zap_skip_check_mapping() or zap_swap_skip()/zap_check_mapping_skip().
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+{ + if (!details) + return false; + + return details->zap_flags & ZAP_FLAG_SKIP_SWAP; +} + struct page *vm_normal_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr, pte_t pte); struct page *vm_normal_page_pmd(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c index c9dc4e9e05b5..8a3751be87ba 100644 --- a/mm/memory.c +++ b/mm/memory.c@@ -1376,8 +1376,7 @@ static unsigned long zap_pte_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb, continue; } - /* If details->check_mapping, we leave swap entries. */ - if (unlikely(details)) + if (unlikely(zap_skip_swap(details))) continue; if (!non_swap_entry(entry))@@ -3328,7 +3327,10 @@ void unmap_mapping_pages(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t start, pgoff_t nr, bool even_cows) { pgoff_t first_index = start, last_index = start + nr - 1; - struct zap_details details = { .zap_mapping = mapping }; + struct zap_details details = { + .zap_mapping = mapping,
I meant to comment on this in the previous patch, but it might be nice to set .zap_mapping in the !even_cows case below to make it very obvious it only applies to ZAP_FLAG_CHECK_MAPPING. Otherwise I think this is a good clean up which makes things clearer. I double checked that unmap_mapping_pages() was the only place in the existing code that needs ZAP_FLAG_SKIP_SWAP and that appears to be the case so there shouldn't be any behaviour changes from this. Reviewed-by: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>
+ .zap_flags = ZAP_FLAG_SKIP_SWAP, + }; if (!even_cows) details.zap_flags |= ZAP_FLAG_CHECK_MAPPING;