Re: [PATCH] mm/swapfile: drop a large unmapped swap-in folio in unuse_pte()

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 10/30/26 23:54, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2026 15:11:56 -0400 Mani Tofigh <mt4022@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Since commit f1879e8a0c60 ("mm, swap: never bypass the swap cache even
>> for SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO"), a fault can read a swapped-out mTHP range into
>> one large folio in the swap cache.  The folio only becomes anon once
>> do_swap_page() maps all of it, so if the faulting PTE changes in the
>> meantime the folio stays in the swap cache while not being mapped or
>> anon:
>>
>>   Task A (fault)                       Task B
>>   do_swap_page()
>>     /* swaps in large folio F */
>>                                        madvise(MADV_DONTNEED)
>>                                          /* zaps the faulting PTE */
>>     /* PTE changed (F not mapped) */
>>
>> swapoff then maps it, which marks all of its pages as mapped and
>> exclusive, and the next fault on one of the other PTEs crashes in
>> do_swap_page():
>>
>>   [    6.424485] kernel BUG at mm/memory.c:5195!
>>
>> ...
>>
>> do_swap_page() already drops such a folio from the swap cache when it
>> can't map all of it.  Do the same in unuse_pte() so that swapoff swaps
>> the entries in again.  With the fix, nothing is reported.
>>
>> This bug was identified and confirmed with the help of a deterministic
>> hypervisor currently under development.  The C reproducer below however
>> hits it within a second.
>>
>> --- a/mm/swapfile.c
>> +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
>> @@ -2518,6 +2518,18 @@ static int unuse_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
>>  	if (!folio_matches_swap_entry(folio, entry))
>>  		return 0;
>>  
>> +	/*
>> +	 * A large folio that is not anon yet was swapped in by a page fault
>> +	 * that did not map it (yet). It can only be mapped as a whole, by
>> +	 * do_swap_page(). Drop it from the swap cache and swap in small
>> +	 * folios instead.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (unlikely(folio_test_large(folio) && !folio_test_anon(folio))) {
>> +		if (!WARN_ON_ONCE(folio_test_dirty(folio)))
>> +			swap_cache_del_folio(folio);
>> +		return 0;
>> +	}
> 
> Let's not WARN here.  If it hits and someone reports it, what do we
> tell them?  "uh, that's working as designed, no action needed".

I thought harder about this, and it just shouldn't happen.

Something that was swapped in and never mapped (!anon) that would be dirty would
reveal a bug elsewhere.

I think we can just turn that into a VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() and still drop the folio.

(there is a reason we never saw this so far in do_swap_page())

-- 
Cheers,

David