Hi Yosry, Johannes and Nhat, Thank you for your review. I have sent out V10 to revert the comment. Chris On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 2:04 PM Nhat Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:42 AM Chris Li <chrisl@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 > > > @@ -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); > > > > This is the place I make the modification for the conflict resolution. > > It depends on the swapcache to execute xa_erase() or xa_load(). > > Obviously, the xa_load() will not delete the entry from the tree. > > > > The conflict resolution itself LGTM. I'll let you and Johannes decide > on the comment (but FWIW, the original meaning still holds, so I don't > see why we need to fix it). > > Reviewed-by: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx> >
