On 2022/5/12 21:37, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 09.05.22 15:14, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> refill_swap_slots_cache is always called when cache->nr is 0. And if
>> cache->nr != 0, we should return cache->nr instead of 0. So remove
>> such buggy and confusing check.
>
> Not sure about the "cache->nr != 0, we should return cache->nr instead
> of 0" part, I'd just drop that from the patch description. We'd actually
> end up overwriting cache->nr after your change, which doesn't sound
> right and also different to what you describe here.
Will do.
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> mm/swap_slots.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/swap_slots.c b/mm/swap_slots.c
>> index 2f877e6f87d7..2a65a89b5b4d 100644
>> --- a/mm/swap_slots.c
>> +++ b/mm/swap_slots.c
>> @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ void enable_swap_slots_cache(void)
>> /* called with swap slot cache's alloc lock held */
>> static int refill_swap_slots_cache(struct swap_slots_cache *cache)
>> {
>> - if (!use_swap_slot_cache || cache->nr)
>> + if (!use_swap_slot_cache)
>> return 0;
>>
>> cache->cur = 0;
>
> I feel like if this function would be called with cache->nr, it would be
> a BUG. So I'm fine with removing it, but we could also think about
> turning it into some sort of WARN/BG to make it clearer that this is
> unexpected.
Since refill_swap_slots_cache is only called by folio_alloc_swap when cache->nr == 0. I think
it might be too overkill to add a WARN/BG.
>
>
> Anyhow,
>
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
Many thanks for comment and Acked-by tag!
>
