Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] mm: swap: Swap-out small-sized THP without splitting

[Ryan Roberts]

On 05/02/2024 09:51, Barry Song wrote:
> +Chris, Suren and Chuanhua
> 
> Hi Ryan,
> 
>> +	/*
>> +	 * __scan_swap_map_try_ssd_cluster() may drop si->lock during discard,
>> +	 * so indicate that we are scanning to synchronise with swapoff.
>> +	 */
>> +	si->flags += SWP_SCANNING;
>> +	ret = __scan_swap_map_try_ssd_cluster(si, &offset, &scan_base, order);
>> +	si->flags -= SWP_SCANNING;
> 
> nobody is using this scan_base afterwards. it seems a bit weird to
> pass a pointer.
> 
>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -1212,11 +1212,13 @@ static unsigned int shrink_folio_list(struct list_head *folio_list,
>>  					if (!can_split_folio(folio, NULL))
>>  						goto activate_locked;
>>  					/*
>> -					 * Split folios without a PMD map right
>> -					 * away. Chances are some or all of the
>> -					 * tail pages can be freed without IO.
>> +					 * Split PMD-mappable folios without a
>> +					 * PMD map right away. Chances are some
>> +					 * or all of the tail pages can be freed
>> +					 * without IO.
>>  					 */
>> -					if (!folio_entire_mapcount(folio) &&
>> +					if (folio_test_pmd_mappable(folio) &&
>> +					    !folio_entire_mapcount(folio) &&
>>  					    split_folio_to_list(folio,
>>  								folio_list))
>>  						goto activate_locked;
>> --
> 
> Chuanhua and I ran this patchset for a couple of days and found a race
> between reclamation and split_folio. this might cause applications get
> wrong data 0 while swapping-in.

I can't claim to fully understand the problem yet (thanks for all the details -
I'll keep reading it and looking at the code until I do), but I guess this
problem should exist today for PMD-mappable folios? We already skip splitting
those folios if they are pmd-mapped. Or does the problem only apply to
pte-mapped folios?