On 07/09/2018 11:53 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Dave Hansen <dave.han...@linux.intel.com> writes:
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_THP_SWAP
>>> +static inline int cluster_swapcount(struct swap_cluster_info *ci)
>>> +{
>>> +   if (!ci || !cluster_is_huge(ci))
>>> +           return 0;
>>> +
>>> +   return cluster_count(ci) - SWAPFILE_CLUSTER;
>>> +}
>>> +#else
>>> +#define cluster_swapcount(ci)                      0
>>> +#endif
>>
>> Dumb questions, round 2:  On a CONFIG_THP_SWAP=n build, presumably,
>> cluster_is_huge()=0 always, so cluster_swapout() always returns 0.  Right?
>>
>> So, why the #ifdef?
> 
> #ifdef here is to reduce the code size for !CONFIG_THP_SWAP.

I'd just remove the !CONFIG_THP_SWAP version entirely.

>>> @@ -1288,24 +1301,30 @@ static void swapcache_free_cluster(swp_entry_t 
>>> entry)
>>>  
>>>     ci = lock_cluster(si, offset);
>>>     VM_BUG_ON(!cluster_is_huge(ci));
>>> +   VM_BUG_ON(!is_cluster_offset(offset));
>>> +   VM_BUG_ON(cluster_count(ci) < SWAPFILE_CLUSTER);
>>>     map = si->swap_map + offset;
>>> -   for (i = 0; i < SWAPFILE_CLUSTER; i++) {
>>> -           val = map[i];
>>> -           VM_BUG_ON(!(val & SWAP_HAS_CACHE));
>>> -           if (val == SWAP_HAS_CACHE)
>>> -                   free_entries++;
>>> +   if (!cluster_swapcount(ci)) {
>>> +           for (i = 0; i < SWAPFILE_CLUSTER; i++) {
>>> +                   val = map[i];
>>> +                   VM_BUG_ON(!(val & SWAP_HAS_CACHE));
>>> +                   if (val == SWAP_HAS_CACHE)
>>> +                           free_entries++;
>>> +           }
>>> +           if (free_entries != SWAPFILE_CLUSTER)
>>> +                   cluster_clear_huge(ci);
>>>     }
>>
>> Also, I'll point out that cluster_swapcount() continues the horrific
>> naming of cluster_couunt(), not saying what the count is *of*.  The
>> return value doesn't help much:
>>
>>      return cluster_count(ci) - SWAPFILE_CLUSTER;
> 
> We have page_swapcount() for page, swp_swapcount() for swap entry.
> cluster_swapcount() tries to mimic them for swap cluster.  But I am not
> good at naming in general.  What's your suggestion?

I don't have a suggestion because I haven't the foggiest idea what it is
doing. :)

Is it the number of instantiated swap cache pages that are referring to
this cluster?  Is it just huge pages?  Huge and small?  One refcount per
huge page, or 512?

Reply via email to