MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e82083d1-af9f-4766-992c-926413f02423@default>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 07:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>
To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 04/10] mm: frontswap: split out __frontswap_unuse_pages
References: <1339325468-30614-1-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com>
 <1339325468-30614-5-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com>
 <4FD5856C.5060708@kernel.org> <1339410650.4999.38.camel@lappy>
In-Reply-To: <1339410650.4999.38.camel@lappy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2232
Lines: 54

> From: Sasha Levin [mailto:levinsasha928@gmail.com]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] mm: frontswap: split out __frontswap_unuse_pages
> 
> > > +	assert_spin_locked(&swap_lock);
> >
> > Normally, we should use this assertion when we can't find swap_lock is hold or not easily
> > by complicated call depth or unexpected use-case like general function.
> > But I expect this function's caller is very limited, not complicated.
> > Just comment write down isn't enough?
> 
> Is there a reason not to do it though? Debugging a case where this
> function is called without a swaplock and causes corruption won't be
> easy.

I'm not sure of the correct kernel style but I like the fact
that assert_spin_locked both documents the lock requirement and tests
it at runtime.

I don't know the correct kernel syntax but is it possible
to make this code be functional when the kernel "debug"
option is on, but a no-op when "debug" is disabled?
IMHO, that would be the ideal solution.
 
> > > +	for (type = swap_list.head; type >= 0; type = si->next) {
> > > +		si = swap_info[type];
> > > +		si_frontswap_pages = atomic_read(&si->frontswap_pages);
> > > +		if (total_pages_to_unuse < si_frontswap_pages) {
> > > +			pages = pages_to_unuse = total_pages_to_unuse;
> > > +		} else {
> > > +			pages = si_frontswap_pages;
> > > +			pages_to_unuse = 0; /* unuse all */
> > > +		}
> > > +		/* ensure there is enough RAM to fetch pages from frontswap */
> > > +		if (security_vm_enough_memory_mm(current->mm, pages)) {
> > > +			ret = -ENOMEM;
> >
> >
> > Nipick:
> > I am not sure detailed error returning would be good.
> > Caller doesn't matter it now but it can consider it in future.
> > Hmm,
> 
> Is there a reason to avoid returning a meaningful error when it's pretty
> easy?

I'm certainly not an expert on kernel style (as this whole series
of patches demonstrates :-) but I think setting a meaningful
error code is useful documentation and plans for future users
that might use the error code.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/