On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 12:04:26PM +0800, Barry Song (Xiaomi) wrote:
> If we are waiting for long I/O to complete, it makes sense to
> avoid holding locks for too long. However, if the folio is
> uptodate, we are likely only waiting for a concurrent PTE
> update to finish. Retrying the entire page fault seems
> excessive.

I think the idea is good, but the implementation is misplaced.
The check for folio_uptodate() should be inside folio_lock_or_retry()
rather than tampering with FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY in its caller.

Similarly for your next patch.

> Signed-off-by: Barry Song (Xiaomi) <[email protected]>
> ---
>  mm/memory.c | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 0c740ca363cc..a2e4f2d87ec8 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -4949,6 +4949,13 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>       }
>  
>       swapcache = folio;
> +     /*
> +      * If the folio is uptodate, we are likely only waiting for
> +      * another concurrent PTE mapping to complete, which should
> +      * be brief. No need to drop the lock and retry the fault.
> +      */
> +     if (folio_test_uptodate(folio))
> +             vmf->flags &= ~FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY;
>       ret |= folio_lock_or_retry(folio, vmf);
>       if (ret & VM_FAULT_RETRY) {
>               if (fault_flag_allow_retry_first(vmf->flags) &&
> -- 
> 2.39.3 (Apple Git-146)
> 
> 

Reply via email to