Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: y4WE4L952xMqiCFELUzg2zzPeGRZ+t1+5MC6epbUTXDl9i8xOZjOYit1OHWX/Kz8Jg28ffV8r5
 hx/PMDBBl0Rg==
IronPort-SDR: S+TmcF8itKGuPoD1D0X8UmVSUnSPDOSPwFvoZTNhIZ6AsfZ6+xu6JwdlhR0ZwFXW4S+XERmA7K
 1iqWZ3m2QNsA==
From:   "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To:     Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
Cc:     <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/swapfile.c: simplify the scan loop in scan_swap_map_slots()
References: <20200422214111.19370-1-richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
        <87d07y2181.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
        <20200423131507.2rgrk3okh42oo6gh@master>
        <87r1wdzlm5.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
        <20200425003012.uuqh547feq3kz4y5@master>
        <87tv17xdfk.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
        <20200426211958.m7aheswirqaj2nte@master>
Date:   Mon, 27 Apr 2020 08:55:33 +0800
In-Reply-To: <20200426211958.m7aheswirqaj2nte@master> (Wei Yang's message of
        "Sun, 26 Apr 2020 21:19:58 +0000")
Message-ID: <87d07tycfu.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 09:07:11AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 10:02:58AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>>Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>if "offset > si->highest_bit" is true and "offset < scan_base" is true,
>>>>>>scan_base need to be returned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When this case would happen in the original code?
>>>>
>>>>In the original code, the loop can still stop.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, I don't get your point yet.
>>>
>>> In original code, there are two separate loops
>>>
>>>     while (++offset <= si->highest_bit) {
>>>     }
>>>
>>>     while (offset < scan_base) {
>>>     }
>>>
>>> And for your condition, (offset > highest_bit) && (offset < scan_base), which
>>> terminates the first loop and fits the second loop well.
>>>
>>> Not sure how this condition would stop the loop in original code?
>>
>>Per my understanding, in your code, if some other task changes
>>si->highest_bit to be less than scan_base in parallel.  The loop may
>>cannot stop.
>
> When (offset > scan_base), (offset >  si->highest_bit) means offset will be
> set to si->lowest_bit.
>
> When (offset < scan_base), next_offset() would always increase offset till
> offset is scan_base.
>
> Sorry, I didn't catch your case. Would you minding giving more detail?

Don't think in single thread model.  There's no lock to prevent other
tasks to change si->highest_bit simultaneously.  For example, task B may
change si->highest_bit to be less than scan_base in task A.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

>>
>>Best Regards,
>>Huang, Ying
>>
>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>Huang, Ying
>>>>
>>>>>>Again, the new code doesn't make it easier to find this kind of issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>>>Huang, Ying