From patchwork Sun Apr 25 09:54:18 2021 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Miaohe Lin X-Patchwork-Id: 12223191 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C4CC433ED for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 09:54:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B30E611C9 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 09:54:33 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8B30E611C9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 96E4D6B0036; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 05:54:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 855C06B006C; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 05:54:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 5E59C6B0072; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 05:54:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0125.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.125]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A93B6B0036 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 05:54:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin21.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE0096D65 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 09:54:30 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78070429500.21.6619341 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.188]) by imf28.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 135992000241 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 09:54:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dggeme703-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.54]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4FSjwx36CDz5v8p; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 17:52:01 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com (10.175.104.170) by dggeme703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 17:54:26 +0800 From: Miaohe Lin To: CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: [PATCH v5 3/4] mm/swap: remove confusing checking for non_swap_entry() in swap_ra_info() Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 17:54:18 +0800 Message-ID: <20210425095419.3830298-4-linmiaohe@huawei.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.23.0 In-Reply-To: <20210425095419.3830298-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com> References: <20210425095419.3830298-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [10.175.104.170] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.178) To dggeme703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.99) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Stat-Signature: pji466n4o37553x51phyzp1bb7z1sogo X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 135992000241 Received-SPF: none (huawei.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf28; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=szxga02-in.huawei.com; client-ip=45.249.212.188 X-HE-DKIM-Result: none/none X-HE-Tag: 1619344471-249923 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: The non_swap_entry() was used for working with VMA based swap readahead via commit ec560175c0b6 ("mm, swap: VMA based swap readahead"). At that time, the non_swap_entry() checking is necessary because the function is called before checking that in do_swap_page(). Then it's moved to swap_ra_info() since commit eaf649ebc3ac ("mm: swap: clean up swap readahead"). After that, the non_swap_entry() checking is unnecessary, because swap_ra_info() is called after non_swap_entry() has been checked already. The resulting code is confusing as the non_swap_entry() check looks racy now because while we released the pte lock, somebody else might have faulted in this pte. So we should check whether it's swap pte first to guard against such race or swap_type will be unexpected. But the race isn't important because it will not cause problem. We would have enough checking when we really operate the PTE entries later. So we remove the non_swap_entry() check here to avoid confusion. Reviewed-by: "Huang, Ying" Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin --- mm/swap_state.c | 6 ------ 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/swap_state.c b/mm/swap_state.c index 272ea2108c9d..df5405384520 100644 --- a/mm/swap_state.c +++ b/mm/swap_state.c @@ -721,7 +721,6 @@ static void swap_ra_info(struct vm_fault *vmf, { struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma; unsigned long ra_val; - swp_entry_t entry; unsigned long faddr, pfn, fpfn; unsigned long start, end; pte_t *pte, *orig_pte; @@ -739,11 +738,6 @@ static void swap_ra_info(struct vm_fault *vmf, faddr = vmf->address; orig_pte = pte = pte_offset_map(vmf->pmd, faddr); - entry = pte_to_swp_entry(*pte); - if ((unlikely(non_swap_entry(entry)))) { - pte_unmap(orig_pte); - return; - } fpfn = PFN_DOWN(faddr); ra_val = GET_SWAP_RA_VAL(vma);