On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 07:11:59AM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 01:16:16AM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 05:44:29AM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 11:31:41PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 01:19:31AM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 04:14:45PM -0800, Nhat Pham wrote:
> > > > > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(folio_test_large(folio)))
> > > > > > return true;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + entry = xa_load(tree, offset);
> > > > > > + if (!entry)
> > > > > > + return false;
> > > > > > +
> > > > >
> > > > > A small comment here pointing out that we are deliberatly not setting
> > > > > uptodate because of the failure may make things more obvious, or do you
> > > > > think that's not needed?
> > > > >
> > > > > > + if (!zswap_decompress(entry, folio))
> > > > > > + return true;
> > > >
> > > > How about an actual -ev and have this in swap_read_folio():
> > >
> > > Good idea, I was going to suggest an enum but this is simpler.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ret = zswap_load(folio);
> > > > if (ret != -ENOENT) {
> > > > folio_unlock(folio);
> > > > goto finish;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > read from swapfile...
> > > >
> > > > Then in zswap_load(), move uptodate further up like this (I had
> > > > previously suggested this):
> > > >
> > > > if (!zswap_decompress(entry, folio))
> > > > return -EIO;
> > > >
> > > > folio_mark_uptodate(folio);
> > > >
> > > > and I think it would be clear, even without or just minimal comments.
> > >
> > > Another possibility is moving folio_mark_uptodate() back to
> > > swap_read_folio(), which should make things even clearer imo as the
> > > success/failure logic is all in one place:
> >
> > That works. bdev, swapfile and zeromap set the flag in that file.
> >
> > > ret = zswap_load(folio);
> > > if (ret != -ENOENT) {
> > > folio_unlock(folio);
> > > /* Comment about not marking uptodate */
> > > if (!ret)
> > > folio_mark_uptodate();
> > > goto finish;
> > > }
> >
> > Personally, I like this one ^. The comment isn't needed IMO, as now
> > zswap really isn't doing anything special compared to the others.
> >
> > > or we can make it crystal clear we have 3 distinct cases:
> > >
> > > ret = zswap_load(folio);
> > > if (!ret) {
> > > folio_unlock(folio);
> > > folio_mark_uptodate();
> > > goto finish;
> > > } else if (ret != -ENOENT) {
> > > /* Comment about not marking uptodate */
> > > folio_unlock(folio);
> > > goto finish;
> > > }
> >
> > This seems unnecessarily repetetive.
>
> I know, but looking at the two, this one makes it clearer to me there
> are 3 distinct cases, and the redundancy is not terrible.
>
> So I personally prefer the latter, but I am fine either way.
I just realized that swap_read_folio_zeromap() does the same trick, so
we should probably also move the folio_mark_uptodate() in there to
swap_read_folio().
Maybe we can do something like this:
/* Returns true if the folio was in the zeromap or zswap */
bool swap_read_folio_in_memory(struct folio *folio)
{
int ret;
ret = swap_read_folio_zeromap(folio);
if (ret == -ENOENT)
ret = zswap_load(folio);
if (ret == 0) {
folio_mark_uptodate(folio);
folio_unlock(folio);
return true;
} else if (ret != -ENOENT) {
folio_unlock(folio);
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
void swap_read_folio(struct folio *folio, struct swap_iocb **plug)
{
...
if (swap_read_folio_in_memory(folio))
goto finish;
...
}
Admittedly, swap_read_folio_in_memory() is not a good name. Maybe
swap_read_folio_zeromap_or_zswap() :)
