Re: Should a swapped out page be deleted from swap cache?

[Li Haifeng <omycle@gmail.com>]

2013/2/19 Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
>
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013, Li Haifeng wrote:
>
> > For explain my question, the two points should be displayed as below.
> >
> > 1.  If an anonymous page is swapped out, this page will be deleted
> > from swap cache and be put back into buddy system.
>
> Yes, unless the page is referenced again before it comes to be
> deleted from swap cache.
>
> >
> > 2. When a page is swapped out, the sharing count of swap slot must not
> > be zero. That is, page_swapcount(page) will not return zero.
>
> I would not say "must not": we just prefer not to waste time on swapping
> a page out if its use count has already gone to 0.  And its use count
> might go down to 0 an instant after swap_writepage() makes that check.
>

Thanks for your reply and patience.

If a anonymous page is swapped out and  comes to be reclaimable,
shrink_page_list() will call __remove_mapping() to delete the page
swapped out from swap cache. Corresponding code lists as below.

 765 static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct list_head *page_list,
 766                                       struct mem_cgroup_zone *mz,
 767                                       struct scan_control *sc,
 768                                       int priority,
 769                                       unsigned long *ret_nr_dirty,
 770                                       unsigned long *ret_nr_writeback)
 771 {
...
 971                 if (!mapping || !__remove_mapping(mapping, page))
 972                         goto keep_locked;
 973
 974                 /*
 975                  * At this point, we have no other references and there is
 976                  * no way to pick any more up (removed from LRU, removed
 977                  * from pagecache). Can use non-atomic bitops now (and
 978                  * we obviously don't have to worry about waking
up a process
 979                  * waiting on the page lock, because there are no
references.
 980                  */
 981                 __clear_page_locked(page);
 982 free_it:
 983                 nr_reclaimed++;
 984
 985                 /*
 986                  * Is there need to periodically free_page_list? It would
 987                  * appear not as the counts should be low
 988                  */
 989                 list_add(&page->lru, &free_pages);
 990                 continue;

Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.

Thanks.
> >
> > Are both of them above right?
> >
> > According the two points above, I was confused to the line 655 below.
> > When a page is swapped out, the return value of page_swapcount(page)
> > will not be zero. So, the page couldn't be deleted from swap cache.
>
> Yes, we cannot free the swap as long as its data might be needed again.
>
> But a swap cache page may linger in memory for an indefinite time,
> in between being queued for write out, and actually being freed from
> the end of the lru by memory pressure.
>
> At various points where we hold the page lock on a swap cache page,
> it's worth checking whether it is still actually needed, or could
> now be freed from swap cache, and the corresponding swap slot freed:
> that's what try_to_free_swap() does.

I do agree. Thanks again.
>
> Hugh
>
> >
> >  644  * If swap is getting full, or if there are no more mappings of
> > this page,
> >  645  * then try_to_free_swap is called to free its swap space.
> >  646  */
> >  647 int try_to_free_swap(struct page *page)
> >  648 {
> >  649         VM_BUG_ON(!PageLocked(page));
> >  650
> >  651         if (!PageSwapCache(page))
> >  652                 return 0;
> >  653         if (PageWriteback(page))
> >  654                 return 0;
> >  655         if (page_swapcount(page))//Has referenced by other swap out
> > page.
> >  656                 return 0;
> >  657
> >  658         /*
> >  659          * Once hibernation has begun to create its image of
> > memory,
> >  660          * there's a danger that one of the calls to
> > try_to_free_swap()
> >  661          * - most probably a call from __try_to_reclaim_swap()
> > while
> >  662          * hibernation is allocating its own swap pages for the
> > image,
> >  663          * but conceivably even a call from memory reclaim - will
> > free
> >  664          * the swap from a page which has already been recorded in
> > the
> >  665          * image as a clean swapcache page, and then reuse its swap
> > for
> >  666          * another page of the image.  On waking from hibernation,
> > the
> >  667          * original page might be freed under memory pressure, then
> >  668          * later read back in from swap, now with the wrong data.
> >  669          *
> >  670          * Hibration suspends storage while it is writing the image
> >  671          * to disk so check that here.
> >  672          */
> >  673         if (pm_suspended_storage())
> >  674                 return 0;
> >  675
> >  676         delete_from_swap_cache(page);
> >  677         SetPageDirty(page);
> >  678         return 1;
> >  679 }
> >
> > Thanks.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>