Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-83231-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <6caed7a8-6a76-4957-9c24-f59b8259b526@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 12:28:20 +0000
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] mm: swap: Swap-out small-sized THP without
 splitting
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@redhat.com,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mhocko@suse.com,
 shy828301@gmail.com, wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, willy@infradead.org,
 xiang@kernel.org, ying.huang@intel.com, yuzhao@google.com,
 chrisl@kernel.org, surenb@google.com, hanchuanhua@oppo.com
References: <20231025144546.577640-5-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
 <20240205095155.7151-1-v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240205095155.7151-1-v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 05/02/2024 09:51, Barry Song wrote:
> +Chris, Suren and Chuanhua
> 
> Hi Ryan,
> 
>> +	/*
>> +	 * __scan_swap_map_try_ssd_cluster() may drop si->lock during discard,
>> +	 * so indicate that we are scanning to synchronise with swapoff.
>> +	 */
>> +	si->flags += SWP_SCANNING;
>> +	ret = __scan_swap_map_try_ssd_cluster(si, &offset, &scan_base, order);
>> +	si->flags -= SWP_SCANNING;
> 
> nobody is using this scan_base afterwards. it seems a bit weird to
> pass a pointer.
> 
>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -1212,11 +1212,13 @@ static unsigned int shrink_folio_list(struct list_head *folio_list,
>>  					if (!can_split_folio(folio, NULL))
>>  						goto activate_locked;
>>  					/*
>> -					 * Split folios without a PMD map right
>> -					 * away. Chances are some or all of the
>> -					 * tail pages can be freed without IO.
>> +					 * Split PMD-mappable folios without a
>> +					 * PMD map right away. Chances are some
>> +					 * or all of the tail pages can be freed
>> +					 * without IO.
>>  					 */
>> -					if (!folio_entire_mapcount(folio) &&
>> +					if (folio_test_pmd_mappable(folio) &&
>> +					    !folio_entire_mapcount(folio) &&
>>  					    split_folio_to_list(folio,
>>  								folio_list))
>>  						goto activate_locked;
>> --
> 
> Chuanhua and I ran this patchset for a couple of days and found a race
> between reclamation and split_folio. this might cause applications get
> wrong data 0 while swapping-in.

I can't claim to fully understand the problem yet (thanks for all the details -
I'll keep reading it and looking at the code until I do), but I guess this
problem should exist today for PMD-mappable folios? We already skip splitting
those folios if they are pmd-mapped. Or does the problem only apply to
pte-mapped folios?