From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pb0-f54.google.com (mail-pb0-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A27366B0031 for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:08:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id ro12so9198629pbb.27 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:08:53 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] frontswap: enable call to invalidate area on swapoff Message-Id: <20131008130853.96139b79a0a4d3aaacc79ed2@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1381220000.16135.10.camel@AMDC1943> References: <1381159541-13981-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <20131007150338.1fdee18b536bb1d9fe41a07b@linux-foundation.org> <1381220000.16135.10.camel@AMDC1943> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shaohua Li , Minchan Kim On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 10:13:20 +0200 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 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. So is that code in __frontswap_invalidate_area() unneeded? -- 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