mm: make swapoff more robust against soft dirty
Both s390 and powerpc have hit the issue of swapoff hanging, when CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SOFT_DIRTY and CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY ifdefs were not quite as x86_64 had them. I think it would be much clearer if HAVE_ARCH_SOFT_DIRTY was just a Kconfig option set by architectures to determine whether the MEM_SOFT_DIRTY option should be offered, and the actual code depend upon CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY alone. But won't embark on that change myself: instead make swapoff more robust, by using pte_swp_clear_soft_dirty() on each pte it encounters, without an explicit #ifdef CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY. That being a no-op, whether the bit in question is defined as 0 or the asm-generic fallback is used, unless soft dirty is fully turned on. Why "maybe" in maybe_same_pte()? Rename it pte_same_as_swp(). Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Acked-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org> Cc: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
88f306b68c
commit
9f8bdb3f3d
@ -1111,19 +1111,9 @@ unsigned int count_swap_pages(int type, int free)
|
||||
}
|
||||
#endif /* CONFIG_HIBERNATION */
|
||||
|
||||
static inline int maybe_same_pte(pte_t pte, pte_t swp_pte)
|
||||
static inline int pte_same_as_swp(pte_t pte, pte_t swp_pte)
|
||||
{
|
||||
#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* When pte keeps soft dirty bit the pte generated
|
||||
* from swap entry does not has it, still it's same
|
||||
* pte from logical point of view.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
pte_t swp_pte_dirty = pte_swp_mksoft_dirty(swp_pte);
|
||||
return pte_same(pte, swp_pte) || pte_same(pte, swp_pte_dirty);
|
||||
#else
|
||||
return pte_same(pte, swp_pte);
|
||||
#endif
|
||||
return pte_same(pte_swp_clear_soft_dirty(pte), swp_pte);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
@ -1152,7 +1142,7 @@ static int unuse_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
|
||||
if (unlikely(!maybe_same_pte(*pte, swp_entry_to_pte(entry)))) {
|
||||
if (unlikely(!pte_same_as_swp(*pte, swp_entry_to_pte(entry)))) {
|
||||
mem_cgroup_cancel_charge(page, memcg, false);
|
||||
ret = 0;
|
||||
goto out;
|
||||
@ -1210,7 +1200,7 @@ static int unuse_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
|
||||
* swapoff spends a _lot_ of time in this loop!
|
||||
* Test inline before going to call unuse_pte.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (unlikely(maybe_same_pte(*pte, swp_pte))) {
|
||||
if (unlikely(pte_same_as_swp(*pte, swp_pte))) {
|
||||
pte_unmap(pte);
|
||||
ret = unuse_pte(vma, pmd, addr, entry, page);
|
||||
if (ret)
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user