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

[Sha Zhengju]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Li Haifeng <omycle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2013/2/19 Will Huck <will.huckk@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> On 02/19/2013 10:04 AM, Li Haifeng wrote:
>>>
>>> 2013/2/19 Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure if
>> if (PageAnon(page) && !PageSwapCache(page)) {
>>  .................
>> }
>> will add the page to swap cache again.
>>
>
> Adding the page to swap cache is the first stage of memory reclaiming.
>
> When an anonymous page will be reclaimed, it should be swapped out. If
> it's not in the swap cache, it will insert into swap cache first and
> set the bit of PG_swapcache on page->flags. Then, it will be swapped
> out by try_to_unmap(). After it's swapped out, and no processes swap

Swapout(writing to swap disk) is not done by try_to_unmap() which only
tries to remove all page table mappings to a page. Before unmapping,
add_to_swap() will set the swap cache page dirty and it will be
written out by pageout()->swap_writepage().


Thanks,
Sha


> in this page, the page will be deleted from swap cache and be put into
> buddy system.
>
> Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.
>
> Regards,
> Haifeng Li.
>
>>>
>>>   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@xxxxxxxxxx  For more info on Linux MM,
>>> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
>>> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
>>
>>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/