On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:32 PM Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > on 3/14/2025 1:42 AM, Kairui Song wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 8:09 PM Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Factor out the actual swap entry freeing logic to new helper > >> __swap_entries_free(). > >> This allow us to futher simplify other swap entry freeing code by > >> leveraging __swap_entries_free() helper function. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> mm/swapfile.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++---------- > >> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c > >> index 5a775456e26c..7c886f9dd6f9 100644 > >> --- a/mm/swapfile.c > >> +++ b/mm/swapfile.c > >> @@ -1347,6 +1347,25 @@ static struct swap_info_struct *_swap_info_get(swp_entry_t entry) > >> return NULL; > >> } > >> > >> +static inline void __swap_entries_free(struct swap_info_struct *si, > >> + struct swap_cluster_info *ci, > >> + swp_entry_t entry, unsigned int nr_pages) > >> +{ > >> + unsigned long offset = swp_offset(entry); > >> + > >> + VM_BUG_ON(cluster_is_empty(ci)); > >> + VM_BUG_ON(ci->count < nr_pages); > >> + > >> + ci->count -= nr_pages; > >> + mem_cgroup_uncharge_swap(entry, nr_pages); > >> + swap_range_free(si, offset, nr_pages); > >> + > >> + if (!ci->count) > >> + free_cluster(si, ci); > >> + else > >> + partial_free_cluster(si, ci); > >> +} > >> + > >> static unsigned char swap_entry_put_locked(struct swap_info_struct *si, > >> unsigned long offset, > >> unsigned char usage) > >> @@ -1525,22 +1544,13 @@ static void swap_entry_range_free(struct swap_info_struct *si, > >> > >> /* It should never free entries across different clusters */ > >> VM_BUG_ON(ci != offset_to_cluster(si, offset + nr_pages - 1)); > >> - VM_BUG_ON(cluster_is_empty(ci)); > >> - VM_BUG_ON(ci->count < nr_pages); > >> > >> - ci->count -= nr_pages; > >> do { > >> VM_BUG_ON(*map != SWAP_HAS_CACHE); > >> *map = 0; > >> } while (++map < map_end); > >> > >> - mem_cgroup_uncharge_swap(entry, nr_pages); > >> - swap_range_free(si, offset, nr_pages); > >> - > >> - if (!ci->count) > >> - free_cluster(si, ci); > >> - else > >> - partial_free_cluster(si, ci); > >> + __swap_entries_free(si, ci, entry, nr_pages); > >> } > >> > >> static void cluster_swap_free_nr(struct swap_info_struct *si, > >> -- > >> 2.30.0 > >> > >> > > > > Hi Kemeng, > Hello Kairui, > > Thanks for feedback. > > > > This patch is a bit too trivial to be a standalone one, you can fold > > it with the later one easily. Also you may want to carry the > > VM_BUG_ON(ci != offset_to_cluster(si, offset + nr_pages - 1)); check > > as well. > Sure, I will do this in next version. > > > > But, that is basically just renaming swap_entry_range_free, you may > > just remove the HAS_CACHE check as you rename it, that way the changes > > should be cleaner. > > > Sorry, I don't quite follow. Are you suggesting that should fold this > patch to later one which removes the HAS_CACHE check and renmae the > swap_entry_range_free. Hi, Just some of my nitpicks :) After you move these parts out of swap_entry_put_locked, there is almost nothing left in swap_entry_put_locked except an "open coded memset". And in your next patch (also after the whole series), all callers of __swap_entries_free will have to call an "open coded memset" anyway, so these changes seem redundant and could be improved. BTW your next patch has a typo in the commit message: s/__swap_entriy_free/__swap_entries_free/g. > > Thanks, > Kemeng >