From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] powerpc/mm: fix _PAGE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY breaking swapoff
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 11:13:49 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mvscu0ve.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1601091651130.9808@eggly.anvils>
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> writes:
> Swapoff after swapping hangs on the G5, when CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE=y
> but CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY is not set. That's because the non-zero
> _PAGE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY bit, added by CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SOFT_DIRTY=y, is not
> discounted when CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY is not set: so swap ptes cannot be
> recognized.
>
> (I suspect that the peculiar dependence of HAVE_ARCH_SOFT_DIRTY on
> CHECKPOINT_RESTORE in arch/powerpc/Kconfig comes from an incomplete
> attempt to solve this problem.)
>
> It's true that the relationship between CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SOFT_DIRTY and
> and CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY is too confusing, and it's true that swapoff
> should be made more robust; but nevertheless, fix up the powerpc ifdefs
> as x86_64 and s390 (which met the same problem) have them, defining the
> bits as 0 if CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY is not set.
Do we need this patch, if we make the maybe_same_pte() more robust. The
#ifdef with pte bits is always a confusing one and IMHO, we should avoid
that if we can ?
>
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
> ---
>
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/hash.h | 5 +++++
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/pgtable.h | 9 ++++++---
> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> --- 4.4-next/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/hash.h 2016-01-06 11:54:01.377508976 -0800
> +++ linux/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/hash.h 2016-01-09 13:54:24.410893347 -0800
> @@ -33,7 +33,12 @@
> #define _PAGE_F_GIX_SHIFT 12
> #define _PAGE_F_SECOND 0x08000 /* Whether to use secondary hash or not */
> #define _PAGE_SPECIAL 0x10000 /* software: special page */
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY
> #define _PAGE_SOFT_DIRTY 0x20000 /* software: software dirty tracking */
> +#else
> +#define _PAGE_SOFT_DIRTY 0x00000
> +#endif
>
> /*
> * We need to differentiate between explicit huge page and THP huge
> --- 4.4-next/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/pgtable.h 2016-01-06 11:54:01.377508976 -0800
> +++ linux/arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/pgtable.h 2016-01-09 13:54:24.410893347 -0800
> @@ -162,8 +162,13 @@ static inline void pgd_set(pgd_t *pgdp,
> #define __pte_to_swp_entry(pte) ((swp_entry_t) { pte_val((pte)) })
> #define __swp_entry_to_pte(x) __pte((x).val)
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SOFT_DIRTY
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY
> #define _PAGE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY (1UL << (SWP_TYPE_BITS + _PAGE_BIT_SWAP_TYPE))
> +#else
> +#define _PAGE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY 0UL
> +#endif /* CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY */
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SOFT_DIRTY
> static inline pte_t pte_swp_mksoft_dirty(pte_t pte)
> {
> return __pte(pte_val(pte) | _PAGE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY);
> @@ -176,8 +181,6 @@ static inline pte_t pte_swp_clear_soft_d
> {
> return __pte(pte_val(pte) & ~_PAGE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY);
> }
> -#else
> -#define _PAGE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY 0
> #endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SOFT_DIRTY */
>
> void pgtable_cache_add(unsigned shift, void (*ctor)(void *));
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-11 5:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-10 0:54 [PATCH next] powerpc/mm: fix _PAGE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY breaking swapoff Hugh Dickins
2016-01-10 0:59 ` [PATCH next] mm: make swapoff more robust against soft dirty Hugh Dickins
2016-01-10 14:09 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2016-01-11 5:39 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2016-01-10 14:07 ` [PATCH next] powerpc/mm: fix _PAGE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY breaking swapoff Cyrill Gorcunov
2016-01-11 5:43 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V [this message]
2016-01-11 6:05 ` Hugh Dickins
2016-01-11 6:31 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2016-01-11 7:33 ` Hugh Dickins
2016-01-11 16:04 ` Laurent Dufour
2016-01-12 12:32 ` [next] " Michael Ellerman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87mvscu0ve.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).