Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 07:36:33AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
>> index 75c84aa763a3..160f78072667 100644
>> --- a/mm/swapfile.c
>> +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
>> @@ -270,7 +270,10 @@ static inline void cluster_set_null(struct swap_cluster_info *info)
>>
>> static inline bool cluster_is_huge(struct swap_cluster_info *info)
>> {
>> - return info->flags & CLUSTER_FLAG_HUGE;
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_THP_SWAP))
>> + return info->flags & CLUSTER_FLAG_HUGE;
>> + else
>> + return false;
>> }
>>
>> static inline void cluster_clear_huge(struct swap_cluster_info *info)
>> @@ -1489,9 +1492,6 @@ static bool swap_page_trans_huge_swapped(struct swap_info_struct *si,
>> int i;
>> bool ret = false;
>>
>> - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_THP_SWAP))
>> - return swap_swapcount(si, entry) != 0;
>
> This tests the value returned from swap_count,
>
>> -
>> ci = lock_cluster_or_swap_info(si, offset);
>> if (!ci || !cluster_is_huge(ci)) {
>> if (map[roffset] != SWAP_HAS_CACHE)
>
> and now we're testing
>
> map[roffset] != SWAP_HAS_CACHE
>
> instead. The two seem to mean the same thing here, since the swap slot hasn't
> been freed to the global pool and so can't be 0, but it might be better for
> consistency and clarity to use swap_count here, and a few lines down too
>
> for (i = 0; i < SWAPFILE_CLUSTER; i++) {
> if (map[offset + i] != SWAP_HAS_CACHE) {
>
> since swap_count seems to be used everywhere else for this.
Yes. swap_count() looks better here. Will change this.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
