From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A20C433EF
	for <linux-mm@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:15:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix)
	id 8957C6B0072; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 02:15:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40)
	id 845916B0073; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 02:15:08 -0400 (EDT)
X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org
Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042)
	id 70C256B0074; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 02:15:08 -0400 (EDT)
X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org
Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (relay.a.hostedemail.com [64.99.140.24])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E0AF6B0072
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 02:15:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtpin04.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1])
	by unirelay09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF9B25312
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:15:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-FDA: 79376244696.04.8EB6ACA
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.189])
	by imf21.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C6871C0019
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:15:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from canpemm500002.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.53])
	by szxga03-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4KjqzL1PVlzCrZ3;
	Wed, 20 Apr 2022 14:10:38 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.174.177.76] (10.174.177.76) by
 canpemm500002.china.huawei.com (7.192.104.244) with Microsoft SMTP Server
 (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id
 15.1.2375.24; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 14:15:02 +0800
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/swapfile: unuse_pte can map random data if swap
 read fails
To: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>
CC: <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <willy@infradead.org>, <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	<dhowells@redhat.com>, <neilb@suse.de>, <david@redhat.com>,
	<surenb@google.com>, <minchan@kernel.org>, <peterx@redhat.com>,
	<sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, <rcampbell@nvidia.com>, <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>,
	<linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20220416030549.60559-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com>
 <87tuapk9n7.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal> <87r15tjy76.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal>
 <e320fb01-7d53-668e-53b5-463312ae0909@huawei.com>
 <87k0bkk2rp.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal>
From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <6cf3726c-d6d0-4255-2deb-3688227c633e@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 14:15:02 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87k0bkk2rp.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.174.177.76]
X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.183) To
 canpemm500002.china.huawei.com (7.192.104.244)
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Rspam-User: 
X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 0C6871C0019
X-Stat-Signature: mrgxrgo5kpwff9jbdd8wady9odk1es56
Authentication-Results: imf21.hostedemail.com;
	dkim=none;
	dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=huawei.com;
	spf=pass (imf21.hostedemail.com: domain of linmiaohe@huawei.com designates 45.249.212.189 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linmiaohe@huawei.com
X-HE-Tag: 1650435305-106519
X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000001, version=1.2.4
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-mm.kvack.org>

On 2022/4/20 8:25, Alistair Popple wrote:
> Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> writes:
> 
>> On 2022/4/19 15:53, Alistair Popple wrote:
>>> Also in madvise_free_pte_range() you could just remove the swap entry as it's no
>>> longer needed.
>>>
>>
>> This swap entry will be removed in madvise_dontneed_single_vma().
>> And in madvise_free_pte_range(), we may need to keep it as same as
>> hwpoison entry. Or am I supposed to remove it even if hwpoison entry
>> is reused later?
> 
> Why would we need to keep it for MADV_FREE though? It only works on private
> anonymous memory, and once the MADV_FREE operation has succeeded callers can
> expect they might get zero-fill pages if accessing the memory again. Therefore
> it should be safe to delete the entry. I think that applies equally to a
> hwpoison entry too - there's no reason to kill the process if it has called
> MADV_FREE on the range.

I tend to agree. We can drop the swapin error entry and hwpoison entry when MADV_FREE
is called. Should I squash these into the current patch or a separate one is preferred?

Thanks for your suggestion!

> 
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>> Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com> writes:
>>>>
>> ...