Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231119194740.94101-1-ryncsn@gmail.com> <20231119194740.94101-5-ryncsn@gmail.com>
 <CAF8kJuNbcvwmojMB2Vp2LjTBxZtKFO_Zng4TODqADxmNPn2kCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMgjq7D_OJiaNPWquFqxk5DKZXqoUMrD7Y_CRM7D0RnRnHmW7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF8kJuOzXAy8Er_knD0hi60Tb+XDMrijg-W83KD=Zdjqbu1Dmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMgjq7DNVkyhwyXz9PRcp3XTBNvznZ97dOFFA_DGsJks12_pQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF8kJuM05apUTd9Mpv6s4sZ6SfSAWD+hM_KLiDfatoXu5QwFbg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMgjq7Bax-EOiXXDRxpHFoyrQWRQdSWbZ0KN7-W8YsocV5C97w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMgjq7Bax-EOiXXDRxpHFoyrQWRQdSWbZ0KN7-W8YsocV5C97w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Christopher Li <chrisl@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 24 Nov 2023 00:37:10 -0800
Message-ID: <CANeU7QkiM9jhPnLg=hWjiZz35dE7mg0SvJPhesd9eJz+1S3gEg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/24] mm/swap: avoid setting page lock bit and doing
 extra unlock check
To:     Kairui Song <ryncsn@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 12:15 AM Kairui Song <ryncsn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> folio_put will discharge a page if it's charged, in original code the
> 2 folio_put call simply free the page since it's not charged. But in
> this patch, folio_put will cancel previous
> mem_cgroup_swapin_charge_folio call, so actually the 3
> mem_cgroup_swapin_charge_folio calls will only charge once. (2 calls
> was cancelled by folio_put).

You are saying the original code case folio_put() will be free without
uncharge. But with your patch folio_put() will free and cancel
mem_cgroup_swapin_charge_folio() charge. That is because the
folio->memcg_data was not set in the first case and folio->memcg_data
was set in the second case?

>
> I think this is making it confusing indeed and causing more trouble in
> error path (the uncharge could be more expensive than unlock check),
> will rework this part.

Agree. Thanks.

Chris