Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: J6U5wv0sg+BZ/bVCkwWE6Qlj7gI88Qlc4rQ93W3eOH4rhz+DJh5P2y7uA4lal4sa8rkUxOyo2q
 tjfawGK+nK0A==
IronPort-SDR: GKEG8s1+doVujsqoPhz2CY1V7gn0+U9w/t5Etzm5A8ieEph4hwY2VxVwb5slULMh2QyOY8lUS8
 tEfvD5dAkvHw==
From:   "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To:     Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        willy@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/swapfile.c: count won't be bigger than SWAP_MAP_MAX
References: <20200501015259.32237-1-richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
        <20200501015259.32237-3-richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
        <20200501154853.bca4cfb7b2558bd43a4942f3@linux-foundation.org>
        <20200502132911.u6y6hkh56ik4ojne@master>
        <87k11pv5ep.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
        <20200507222014.6s5szrt6zy2b6ybo@master>
Date:   Fri, 08 May 2020 07:48:01 +0800
In-Reply-To: <20200507222014.6s5szrt6zy2b6ybo@master> (Wei Yang's message of
        "Thu, 7 May 2020 22:20:14 +0000")
Message-ID: <87ftcbtiha.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 04:22:54PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 03:48:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>>On Fri,  1 May 2020 01:52:59 +0000 Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When the condition is true, there are two possibilities:
>>>>
>>>>I'm struggling with this one.
>>>>
>>>>>    1. count == SWAP_MAP_BAD
>>>>>    2. count == (SWAP_MAP_MAX & COUNT_CONTINUED) == SWAP_MAP_SHMEM
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure what 2. is trying to say.  For a start, (SWAP_MAP_MAX &
>>>>COUNT_CONTINUED) is zero.  I guess it meant "|"?
>>>
>>> Oops, you are right. It should be (SWAP_MAP_MAX | COUNT_CONTINUED).
>>>
>>> Sorry for the confusion.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Also, the return value documentation says we return EINVAL for migration
>>>>entries.  Where's that happening, or is the comment out of date?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not paid attention to this.
>>>
>>> Take look into the code, I don't find a relationship between the swap count
>>> and migration. Seems we just make a migration entry but not duplicate it.  
>>> If my understanding is correct.
>>
>>Per my understanding, one functionality of the error path is to catch
>>the behavior that shouldn't happen at all.  For example, if
>>__swap_duplicate() is called for the migration entry because of some
>>race condition.
>>
>
> If __swap_duplicate() run for a migration entry, it returns since
> get_swap_entry() couldn't find a swap_info_struct. So the return value is
> -EINVAL.
>
> While when this situation would happen? And the race condition you mean is?

Sorry for confusing.  I don't mean there are some known race conditions
in current kernel that will trigger the error code path.  I mean we may
use the error path to identify some race conditions in the future.

I remember that Matthew thought that the swap code should work
reasonably even for garbage PTE.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

>>Best Regards,
>>Huang, Ying