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:   Wed, 19 Oct 2022 16:18:10 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/huge_memory: Do not clobber swp_entry_t during
 THP split
Message-Id: <20221019161810.7510df1f37658a2b71c5e3a7@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbLzkras5SV95-J4r=nbGx5u_5JS2u8KG=23hzVvFBqCnMA5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20221019134156.zjyyn5aownakvztf@techsingularity.net>
        <CAHbLzkras5SV95-J4r=nbGx5u_5JS2u8KG=23hzVvFBqCnMA5g@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:17:14 -0700 Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The intent of commit b653db77350c patch was to avoid the case where
> > PG_private is clear but folio->private is not-NULL. However, THP tail
> > pages uses page->private for "swp_entry_t if folio_test_swapcache()" as
> > stated in the documentation for struct folio. This patch only clobbers
> > page->private for tail pages if the head page was not in swapcache and
> > warns once if page->private had an unexpected value.
> 
> It looks like the same issue fixed by
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20220906190602.1626037-1-bfoster@redhat.com/

It is.

As I asked earlier this week, what about reverting b653db77350c?  Why
do we care about the value of ->private for non-PG_private pages?