From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com (mail-pa0-f43.google.com [209.85.220.43]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52D326B0032 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 04:13:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id hz1so8450173pad.30 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 01:13:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eucpsbgm2.samsung.com (unknown [203.254.199.245]) by mailout3.w1.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01(7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MUC00G32C69HKC0@mailout3.w1.samsung.com> for linux-mm@kvack.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:13:21 +0100 (BST) Message-id: <1381220000.16135.10.camel@AMDC1943> Subject: Re: [PATCH] frontswap: enable call to invalidate area on swapoff From: Krzysztof Kozlowski Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 10:13:20 +0200 In-reply-to: <20131007150338.1fdee18b536bb1d9fe41a07b@linux-foundation.org> References: <1381159541-13981-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <20131007150338.1fdee18b536bb1d9fe41a07b@linux-foundation.org> Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit MIME-version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shaohua Li , Minchan Kim On pon, 2013-10-07 at 15:03 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 17:25:41 +0200 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > During swapoff the frontswap_map was NULL-ified before calling > > frontswap_invalidate_area(). However the frontswap_invalidate_area() > > exits early if frontswap_map is NULL. Invalidate was never called during > > swapoff. > > > > This patch moves frontswap_map_set() in swapoff just after calling > > frontswap_invalidate_area() so outside of locks > > (swap_lock and swap_info_struct->lock). This shouldn't be a problem as > > during swapon the frontswap_map_set() is called also outside of any > > locks. > > > > Ahem. So there's a bunch of code in __frontswap_invalidate_area() > which hasn't ever been executed and nobody noticed it. So perhaps that > code isn't actually needed? > > More seriously, this patch looks like it enables code which hasn't been > used or tested before. How well tested was this? > > Are there any runtime-visible effects from this change? I tested zswap on x86 and x86-64 and there was no difference. This is good as there shouldn't be visible anything because swapoff is unusing all pages anyway: try_to_unuse(type, false, 0); /* force all pages to be unused */ I haven't tested other frontswap users. Best regards, Krzysztof Kozlowski -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org