On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 1:48 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:35:43AM -0700, Chris Li wrote: > > /* > > - * When reading into the swapcache, invalidate our entry. The > > + * When reading into the swapcache, erase our entry. The > > * swapcache can be the authoritative owner of the page and > > * its mappings, and the pressure that results from having two > > * in-memory copies outweighs any benefits of caching the > > Not sure why you editorialized this? Your patch doesn't change those > semantics, for which "invalidation" of the backing copy is a much > better description, given we're also marking the folio dirty again etc. I was thinking the zswap_invalidate_entry function was deleted now. So I use the erase to match the xa_erase(). > > Can you please send a delta fix to undo that? Sure. Chris > > > @@ -1649,8 +1581,12 @@ bool zswap_load(struct folio *folio) > > * the fault fails. We remain the primary owner of the entry.) > > */ > > if (swapcache) > > - zswap_rb_erase(&tree->rbroot, entry); > > - spin_unlock(&tree->lock); > > + entry = xa_erase(tree, offset); > > + else > > + entry = xa_load(tree, offset); > > + > > + if (!entry) > > + return false; > > > > if (entry->length) > > zswap_decompress(entry, page); > > Otherwise, looks good to me > > Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> >
