on 6/6/2025 3:57 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 6 Jun 2025 06:10:31 +0800 Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> As noted in the comments, we need to release block usage for swap entry >> which was replaced with poisoned swap entry. However, no block usage is >> actually freed by calling shmem_recalc_inode(inode, -nr_pages, -nr_pages). >> Instead, call shmem_recalc_inode(inode, 0, -nr_pages) can correctly release >> the block usage. >> >> ... >> >> --- a/mm/shmem.c >> +++ b/mm/shmem.c >> @@ -2145,7 +2145,7 @@ static void shmem_set_folio_swapin_error(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index, >> * won't be 0 when inode is released and thus trigger WARN_ON(i_blocks) >> * in shmem_evict_inode(). >> */ >> - shmem_recalc_inode(inode, -nr_pages, -nr_pages); >> + shmem_recalc_inode(inode, 0, -nr_pages); >> swap_free_nr(swap, nr_pages); >> } > > Huh, three years ago. What do we think might be the userspace-visible > runtime effects of this? This could trigger WARN_ON(i_blocks) in shmem_evict_inode() as i_blocks is supposed to be dropped in the quota free routine. > >
