The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>
To: "Barry Song (Xiaomi)" <baohua@kernel.org>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: baoquan.he@linux.dev, chrisl@kernel.org, jp.kobryn@linux.dev,
	kasong@tencent.com, liam@infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ljs@kernel.org, mhocko@suse.com,
	nphamcs@gmail.com, rppt@kernel.org, shakeel.butt@linux.dev,
	shikemeng@huaweicloud.com, surenb@google.com,
	usama.arif@linux.dev, vbabka@kernel.org, youngjun.park@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] mm: drop stale folio_ref_count()==1 check in do_swap_page reuse logic
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 10:14:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3a185a5d-2f2c-4e9d-9cd9-8bdb236dfc5c@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260701235955.36126-3-baohua@kernel.org>

On 7/2/26 01:59, Barry Song (Xiaomi) wrote:
> The "we just allocated them without exposing them to the swapcache"
> case no longer exists, as Kairui has routed synchronous I/O through
> the swapcache as well in his series "unify swapin use swap cache and
> cleanup flags"[1]. As a result, folio_ref_count() should never be 1
> in this path, since at least two references are held (base ref plus
> swapcache). Remove the folio_ref_count()==1 check and update the
> comment accordingly.

Sashiko points out two minor things (one flagged as medium, lol, sure sure).

Here, you can clarify that folio_ref_count()==1 is true for freshly allocated
pages (due to the KSM check) in which case exclusive=true already.

> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251220-swap-table-p2-v5-0-8862a265a033@tencent.com/
> 
> Acked-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>
> Reviewed-by: Kairui Song <kasong@tencent.com>
> Reviewed-by: Baoquan He <baoquan.he@linux.dev>
> Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
> Signed-off-by: Barry Song (Xiaomi) <baohua@kernel.org>
> ---
>  mm/memory.c | 9 +++------
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 87da78eb1abd..71e9d394816b 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -5046,13 +5046,10 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>  		pte = pte_mkuffd_wp(pte);
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * Same logic as in do_wp_page(); however, optimize for pages that are
> -	 * certainly not shared either because we just allocated them without
> -	 * exposing them to the swapcache or because the swap entry indicates
> -	 * exclusivity.
> +	 * Similar logic as in do_wp_page(); however, optimize for pages that are
> +	 * certainly not because the swap entry indicates exclusivity.

s/not/not shared/

but likely you should just simplify to "... pages that are certainly exclusive."

>  	 */
> -	if (!folio_test_ksm(folio) &&
> -	    (exclusive || folio_ref_count(folio) == 1)) {
> +	if (exclusive) {
>  		if ((vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE) && !userfaultfd_pte_wp(vma, pte) &&
>  		    !pte_needs_soft_dirty_wp(vma, pte)) {
>  			pte = pte_mkwrite(pte, vma);


-- 
Cheers,

David

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-07-02  8:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-07-01 23:59 [PATCH v3 0/4] mm: drop redundant lru_add_drain in anon folio reuse paths Barry Song (Xiaomi)
2026-07-01 23:59 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] mm: avoid unnecessary lru drain for wp_can_reuse_anon_folio() Barry Song (Xiaomi)
2026-07-02  8:05   ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-07-01 23:59 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] mm: drop stale folio_ref_count()==1 check in do_swap_page reuse logic Barry Song (Xiaomi)
2026-07-02  8:07   ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-07-02  8:14   ` David Hildenbrand (Arm) [this message]
2026-07-01 23:59 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] mm: entirely remove lru_add_drain in do_swap_page Barry Song (Xiaomi)
2026-07-01 23:59 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] mm: clarify the folio_free_swap() for do_swap_page() Barry Song (Xiaomi)
2026-07-02  8:10   ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)

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=3a185a5d-2f2c-4e9d-9cd9-8bdb236dfc5c@kernel.org \
    --to=david@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=baohua@kernel.org \
    --cc=baoquan.he@linux.dev \
    --cc=chrisl@kernel.org \
    --cc=jp.kobryn@linux.dev \
    --cc=kasong@tencent.com \
    --cc=liam@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=ljs@kernel.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=nphamcs@gmail.com \
    --cc=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
    --cc=shikemeng@huaweicloud.com \
    --cc=surenb@google.com \
    --cc=usama.arif@linux.dev \
    --cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
    --cc=youngjun.park@lge.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