On 2022/3/31 14:37, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 9:26 PM Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> When folio is file lru, folio_test_swapbacked is guaranteed to be true. So
>>> it's unnecessary to check it here again. No functional change intended.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> mm/vmscan.c | 3 +--
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>>> index 1678802e03e7..7c1a9713bfc9 100644
>>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>>> @@ -1434,8 +1434,7 @@ static void folio_check_dirty_writeback(struct folio *folio,
>>> * Anonymous pages are not handled by flushers and must be written
>>> * from reclaim context. Do not stall reclaim based on them
>>> */
>>> - if (!folio_is_file_lru(folio) ||
>>> - (folio_test_anon(folio) && !folio_test_swapbacked(folio))) {
>>> + if (!folio_is_file_lru(folio) || folio_test_anon(folio)) {
>>
>> At least your login is no problem since folio_is_file_lru() is equal to
>> !folio_test_swapbacked(). But the new code is not clear to me.
>> The old code is easy to understand, e.g. folio_test_anon(folio) &&
>> !folio_test_swapbacked(folio) tells us that the anon pages which
>> do not need to be swapped should be skipped.
>
> That is for MADV_FREE pages. The code is introduced in commit
> 802a3a92ad7a ("mm: reclaim MADV_FREE pages").
>
> So I think the original code is better. It's an implementation detail
> that folio_is_file_lru() equals !folio_test_swapbacked(). It may be
> better to add some comments here for MADV_FREE pages.
>
Do you tend to drop this patch or adding a comment with the change in this patch or something else?
Thanks.
>> So I'm neutral on the patch.
>
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
> .
>
