On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 04:58:05 -0700 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > --- a/include/linux/zswap.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/zswap.h
> > > @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static inline bool zswap_is_enabled(void)
> > >
> > > static inline bool zswap_never_enabled(void)
> > > {
> > > - return false;
> > > + return true;
> > > }
> >
> > Well, that code was as wrong as it's possible to get.
> >
> > But what effect does this have? Seems "not much"? Perhaps we'll
> > attempt a zswap_load() which later fails for other reasons?
>
> Actually zswap_load() is a noop with !CONFIG_ZSWAP, so it doesn't have
> an effect there. The only effect is that with Barry's latest large
> folio swapin patches for zram, we will always fallback to order-0
> swapin, even mistakenly when !CONFIG_ZSWAP.
>
> Basically the bug just makes Barry's in progress patches not work at all.
OK, thanks, I added this to the changelog:
The only effect of this issue is that with Barry's latest large folio
swapin patches for zram ("mm: support mTHP swap-in for zRAM-like
swapfile"), we will always fallback to order-0 swapin, even mistakenly
when !CONFIG_ZSWAP.
Basically this bug makes Barry's in progress patches not work at all.
