Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:34:46 -0800 (PST)
From:   Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 09/13] mm/munlock: delete smp_mb() from
 __pagevec_lru_add_fn()
In-Reply-To: <55a49083-37f9-3766-1de9-9feea7428ac@google.com>
Message-ID: <28a7c6ff-6270-9060-8df0-862bdcaac366@google.com>
References: <55a49083-37f9-3766-1de9-9feea7428ac@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

My reading of comment on smp_mb__after_atomic() in __pagevec_lru_add_fn()
says that it can now be deleted; and that remains so when the next patch
is added.

Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
---
v2: same as v1.

 mm/swap.c | 37 +++++++++----------------------------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
index 682a03301a2c..3f770b1ea2c1 100644
--- a/mm/swap.c
+++ b/mm/swap.c
@@ -1025,37 +1025,18 @@ static void __pagevec_lru_add_fn(struct folio *folio, struct lruvec *lruvec)
 
 	VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_lru(folio), folio);
 
+	folio_set_lru(folio);
 	/*
-	 * A folio becomes evictable in two ways:
-	 * 1) Within LRU lock [munlock_vma_page() and __munlock_pagevec()].
-	 * 2) Before acquiring LRU lock to put the folio on the correct LRU
-	 *    and then
-	 *   a) do PageLRU check with lock [check_move_unevictable_pages]
-	 *   b) do PageLRU check before lock [clear_page_mlock]
-	 *
-	 * (1) & (2a) are ok as LRU lock will serialize them. For (2b), we need
-	 * following strict ordering:
-	 *
-	 * #0: __pagevec_lru_add_fn		#1: clear_page_mlock
-	 *
-	 * folio_set_lru()			folio_test_clear_mlocked()
-	 * smp_mb() // explicit ordering	// above provides strict
-	 *					// ordering
-	 * folio_test_mlocked()			folio_test_lru()
+	 * Is an smp_mb__after_atomic() still required here, before
+	 * folio_evictable() tests PageMlocked, to rule out the possibility
+	 * of stranding an evictable folio on an unevictable LRU?  I think
+	 * not, because munlock_page() only clears PageMlocked while the LRU
+	 * lock is held.
 	 *
-	 *
-	 * if '#1' does not observe setting of PG_lru by '#0' and
-	 * fails isolation, the explicit barrier will make sure that
-	 * folio_evictable check will put the folio on the correct
-	 * LRU. Without smp_mb(), folio_set_lru() can be reordered
-	 * after folio_test_mlocked() check and can make '#1' fail the
-	 * isolation of the folio whose mlocked bit is cleared (#0 is
-	 * also looking at the same folio) and the evictable folio will
-	 * be stranded on an unevictable LRU.
+	 * (That is not true of __page_cache_release(), and not necessarily
+	 * true of release_pages(): but those only clear PageMlocked after
+	 * put_page_testzero() has excluded any other users of the page.)
 	 */
-	folio_set_lru(folio);
-	smp_mb__after_atomic();
-
 	if (folio_evictable(folio)) {
 		if (was_unevictable)
 			__count_vm_events(UNEVICTABLE_PGRESCUED, nr_pages);
-- 
2.34.1