Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Message-ID: <fd5c6a00-ea0e-b5d8-999f-d7b65c193ae4@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 May 2022 15:37:13 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/15] mm/swap: remove buggy cache->nr check in
 refill_swap_slots_cache
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc:     willy@infradead.org, vbabka@suse.cz, dhowells@redhat.com,
        neilb@suse.de, apopple@nvidia.com, surenb@google.com,
        peterx@redhat.com, naoya.horiguchi@nec.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220509131416.17553-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com>
 <20220509131416.17553-7-linmiaohe@huawei.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <20220509131416.17553-7-linmiaohe@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 09.05.22 15:14, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> refill_swap_slots_cache is always called when cache->nr is 0. And if
> cache->nr != 0, we should return cache->nr instead of 0. So remove
> such buggy and confusing check.

Not sure about the "cache->nr != 0, we should return cache->nr instead
of 0" part, I'd just drop that from the patch description. We'd actually
end up overwriting cache->nr after your change, which doesn't sound
right and also different to what you describe here.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
> ---
>  mm/swap_slots.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/swap_slots.c b/mm/swap_slots.c
> index 2f877e6f87d7..2a65a89b5b4d 100644
> --- a/mm/swap_slots.c
> +++ b/mm/swap_slots.c
> @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ void enable_swap_slots_cache(void)
>  /* called with swap slot cache's alloc lock held */
>  static int refill_swap_slots_cache(struct swap_slots_cache *cache)
>  {
> -	if (!use_swap_slot_cache || cache->nr)
> +	if (!use_swap_slot_cache)
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	cache->cur = 0;

I feel like if this function would be called with cache->nr, it would be
a BUG. So I'm fine with removing it, but we could also think about
turning it into some sort of WARN/BG to make it clearer that this is
unexpected.


Anyhow,

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb