* [PATCH] shmem: factor out remove_indirect_page()
@ 2011-04-11 12:27 Namhyung Kim
2011-04-15 1:27 ` Hugh Dickins
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Namhyung Kim @ 2011-04-11 12:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hugh Dickins; +Cc: linux-mm, linux-kernel
Split out some common code in shmem_truncate_range() in order to
improve readability (hopefully) and to reduce code duplication.
Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
---
mm/shmem.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
1 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
index 58da7c150ba6..58ad1159678f 100644
--- a/mm/shmem.c
+++ b/mm/shmem.c
@@ -531,6 +531,31 @@ static void shmem_free_pages(struct list_head *next)
} while (next);
}
+/**
+ * remove_indirect_page - remove a indirect page from upper layer
+ * @dir: pointer to the indirect page in the upper layer
+ * @page: indirect page to be removed
+ * @needs_lock: pointer to spinlock if needed
+ * @free_list: list which the removed page will be inserted into
+ *
+ * This function removes @page from @dir and insert it into @free_list.
+ * The @page still remains after this function but will not be seen by
+ * other tasks. Finally it will be freed via shmem_free_pages().
+ */
+static void remove_indirect_page(struct page **dir, struct page *page,
+ spinlock_t *needs_lock, struct list_head *free_list)
+{
+ if (needs_lock) {
+ spin_lock(needs_lock);
+ *dir = NULL;
+ spin_unlock(needs_lock);
+ } else {
+ *dir = NULL;
+ }
+
+ list_add(&page->lru, free_list);
+}
+
static void shmem_truncate_range(struct inode *inode, loff_t start, loff_t end)
{
struct shmem_inode_info *info = SHMEM_I(inode);
@@ -582,9 +607,9 @@ static void shmem_truncate_range(struct inode *inode, loff_t start, loff_t end)
topdir = info->i_indirect;
if (topdir && idx <= SHMEM_NR_DIRECT && !punch_hole) {
- info->i_indirect = NULL;
+ remove_indirect_page(&info->i_indirect, topdir, NULL,
+ &pages_to_free);
nr_pages_to_free++;
- list_add(&topdir->lru, &pages_to_free);
}
spin_unlock(&info->lock);
@@ -637,15 +662,10 @@ static void shmem_truncate_range(struct inode *inode, loff_t start, loff_t end)
diroff = ((idx - ENTRIES_PER_PAGEPAGE/2) %
ENTRIES_PER_PAGEPAGE) / ENTRIES_PER_PAGE;
if (!diroff && !offset && upper_limit >= stage) {
- if (needs_lock) {
- spin_lock(needs_lock);
- *dir = NULL;
- spin_unlock(needs_lock);
- needs_lock = NULL;
- } else
- *dir = NULL;
+ remove_indirect_page(dir, middir, needs_lock,
+ &pages_to_free);
nr_pages_to_free++;
- list_add(&middir->lru, &pages_to_free);
+ needs_lock = NULL;
}
shmem_dir_unmap(dir);
dir = shmem_dir_map(middir);
@@ -672,15 +692,10 @@ static void shmem_truncate_range(struct inode *inode, loff_t start, loff_t end)
if (punch_hole)
needs_lock = &info->lock;
if (upper_limit >= stage) {
- if (needs_lock) {
- spin_lock(needs_lock);
- *dir = NULL;
- spin_unlock(needs_lock);
- needs_lock = NULL;
- } else
- *dir = NULL;
+ remove_indirect_page(dir, middir, needs_lock,
+ &pages_to_free);
nr_pages_to_free++;
- list_add(&middir->lru, &pages_to_free);
+ needs_lock = NULL;
}
shmem_dir_unmap(dir);
cond_resched();
@@ -690,15 +705,10 @@ static void shmem_truncate_range(struct inode *inode, loff_t start, loff_t end)
punch_lock = needs_lock;
subdir = dir[diroff];
if (subdir && !offset && upper_limit-idx >= ENTRIES_PER_PAGE) {
- if (needs_lock) {
- spin_lock(needs_lock);
- dir[diroff] = NULL;
- spin_unlock(needs_lock);
- punch_lock = NULL;
- } else
- dir[diroff] = NULL;
+ remove_indirect_page(&dir[diroff], subdir, needs_lock,
+ &pages_to_free);
nr_pages_to_free++;
- list_add(&subdir->lru, &pages_to_free);
+ punch_lock = NULL;
}
if (subdir && page_private(subdir) /* has swap entries */) {
size = limit - idx;
--
1.7.4
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] shmem: factor out remove_indirect_page()
2011-04-11 12:27 [PATCH] shmem: factor out remove_indirect_page() Namhyung Kim
@ 2011-04-15 1:27 ` Hugh Dickins
2011-04-15 4:01 ` Namhyung Kim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Hugh Dickins @ 2011-04-15 1:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Namhyung Kim; +Cc: linux-mm, linux-kernel
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:27 AM, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com> wrote:
> Split out some common code in shmem_truncate_range() in order to
> improve readability (hopefully) and to reduce code duplication.
>
> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
Thank you for taking the trouble to do this.
However... all that shmem_swp index code is irredeemably unreadable
(my fault, dating from when I converted it to use highmem with kmaps),
and I'd rather leave it untouched until we simply delete it
completely.
I have a patch/set (good for my testing but not yet good for final
submission) which removes all that code, and the need to allocate
shmem_swp index pages (even when CONFIG_SWAP is not set!): instead
saving the swp_entries in the standard pagecache radix_tree for the
file, so no extra allocations are needed at all.
It is possible that my patch/set will not be accepted (extending the
radix_tree in that way may meet some resistance); but I do think
that's the right way forward.
Thanks,
Hugh
> ---
> mm/shmem.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> 1 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> index 58da7c150ba6..58ad1159678f 100644
> --- a/mm/shmem.c
> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> @@ -531,6 +531,31 @@ static void shmem_free_pages(struct list_head *next)
> } while (next);
> }
>
> +/**
> + * remove_indirect_page - remove a indirect page from upper layer
> + * @dir: pointer to the indirect page in the upper layer
> + * @page: indirect page to be removed
> + * @needs_lock: pointer to spinlock if needed
> + * @free_list: list which the removed page will be inserted into
> + *
> + * This function removes @page from @dir and insert it into @free_list.
> + * The @page still remains after this function but will not be seen by
> + * other tasks. Finally it will be freed via shmem_free_pages().
> + */
> +static void remove_indirect_page(struct page **dir, struct page *page,
> + spinlock_t *needs_lock, struct list_head *free_list)
> +{
> + if (needs_lock) {
> + spin_lock(needs_lock);
> + *dir = NULL;
> + spin_unlock(needs_lock);
> + } else {
> + *dir = NULL;
> + }
> +
> + list_add(&page->lru, free_list);
> +}
> +
> static void shmem_truncate_range(struct inode *inode, loff_t start, loff_t end)
> {
> struct shmem_inode_info *info = SHMEM_I(inode);
> @@ -582,9 +607,9 @@ static void shmem_truncate_range(struct inode *inode, loff_t start, loff_t end)
>
> topdir = info->i_indirect;
> if (topdir && idx <= SHMEM_NR_DIRECT && !punch_hole) {
> - info->i_indirect = NULL;
> + remove_indirect_page(&info->i_indirect, topdir, NULL,
> + &pages_to_free);
> nr_pages_to_free++;
> - list_add(&topdir->lru, &pages_to_free);
> }
> spin_unlock(&info->lock);
>
> @@ -637,15 +662,10 @@ static void shmem_truncate_range(struct inode *inode, loff_t start, loff_t end)
> diroff = ((idx - ENTRIES_PER_PAGEPAGE/2) %
> ENTRIES_PER_PAGEPAGE) / ENTRIES_PER_PAGE;
> if (!diroff && !offset && upper_limit >= stage) {
> - if (needs_lock) {
> - spin_lock(needs_lock);
> - *dir = NULL;
> - spin_unlock(needs_lock);
> - needs_lock = NULL;
> - } else
> - *dir = NULL;
> + remove_indirect_page(dir, middir, needs_lock,
> + &pages_to_free);
> nr_pages_to_free++;
> - list_add(&middir->lru, &pages_to_free);
> + needs_lock = NULL;
> }
> shmem_dir_unmap(dir);
> dir = shmem_dir_map(middir);
> @@ -672,15 +692,10 @@ static void shmem_truncate_range(struct inode *inode, loff_t start, loff_t end)
> if (punch_hole)
> needs_lock = &info->lock;
> if (upper_limit >= stage) {
> - if (needs_lock) {
> - spin_lock(needs_lock);
> - *dir = NULL;
> - spin_unlock(needs_lock);
> - needs_lock = NULL;
> - } else
> - *dir = NULL;
> + remove_indirect_page(dir, middir, needs_lock,
> + &pages_to_free);
> nr_pages_to_free++;
> - list_add(&middir->lru, &pages_to_free);
> + needs_lock = NULL;
> }
> shmem_dir_unmap(dir);
> cond_resched();
> @@ -690,15 +705,10 @@ static void shmem_truncate_range(struct inode *inode, loff_t start, loff_t end)
> punch_lock = needs_lock;
> subdir = dir[diroff];
> if (subdir && !offset && upper_limit-idx >= ENTRIES_PER_PAGE) {
> - if (needs_lock) {
> - spin_lock(needs_lock);
> - dir[diroff] = NULL;
> - spin_unlock(needs_lock);
> - punch_lock = NULL;
> - } else
> - dir[diroff] = NULL;
> + remove_indirect_page(&dir[diroff], subdir, needs_lock,
> + &pages_to_free);
> nr_pages_to_free++;
> - list_add(&subdir->lru, &pages_to_free);
> + punch_lock = NULL;
> }
> if (subdir && page_private(subdir) /* has swap entries */) {
> size = limit - idx;
> --
> 1.7.4
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] shmem: factor out remove_indirect_page()
2011-04-15 1:27 ` Hugh Dickins
@ 2011-04-15 4:01 ` Namhyung Kim
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Namhyung Kim @ 2011-04-15 4:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hugh Dickins; +Cc: linux-mm, linux-kernel
2011-04-14 (ea(C)), 18:27 -0700, Hugh Dickins:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:27 AM, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Split out some common code in shmem_truncate_range() in order to
> > improve readability (hopefully) and to reduce code duplication.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
>
> Thank you for taking the trouble to do this.
>
> However... all that shmem_swp index code is irredeemably unreadable
> (my fault, dating from when I converted it to use highmem with kmaps),
> and I'd rather leave it untouched until we simply delete it
> completely.
>
> I have a patch/set (good for my testing but not yet good for final
> submission) which removes all that code, and the need to allocate
> shmem_swp index pages (even when CONFIG_SWAP is not set!): instead
> saving the swp_entries in the standard pagecache radix_tree for the
> file, so no extra allocations are needed at all.
>
> It is possible that my patch/set will not be accepted (extending the
> radix_tree in that way may meet some resistance); but I do think
> that's the right way forward.
>
Looks reasonable. Please feel free to ignore this then, I'll look
forward to your patches.
Thanks.
--
Regards,
Namhyung Kim
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-04-15 4:01 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-04-11 12:27 [PATCH] shmem: factor out remove_indirect_page() Namhyung Kim
2011-04-15 1:27 ` Hugh Dickins
2011-04-15 4:01 ` Namhyung Kim
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).