From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751182AbdCPGV7 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 16 Mar 2017 02:21:59 -0400
Received: from LGEAMRELO12.lge.com ([156.147.23.52]:41942 "EHLO
        lgeamrelo12.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750866AbdCPGV6 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 16 Mar 2017 02:21:58 -0400
X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.121
X-Original-MAILFROM: minchan@kernel.org
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.223.161
X-Original-MAILFROM: minchan@kernel.org
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:51:54 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel-team@lge.com,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] mm: remove SWAP_[SUCCESS|AGAIN|FAIL]
Message-ID: <20170316055154.GA26126@bbox>
References: <1489555493-14659-1-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org>
 <1489555493-14659-11-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org>
 <20170316044023.GA2597@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
 <20170316053313.GA19241@bbox>
 <20170316054430.GA464@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170316054430.GA464@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 02:44:30PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (03/16/17 14:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
> [..]
> > "There is no user for it"
> > 
> > I was liar so need to be a honest guy.
> 
> ha-ha-ha. I didn't say that :)
> 
> [..]
> > @@ -1414,7 +1414,7 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >  			 */
> >  			if (unlikely(PageSwapBacked(page) != PageSwapCache(page))) {
> >  				WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> > -				ret = SWAP_FAIL;
> > +				ret = false;
> >  				page_vma_mapped_walk_done(&pvmw);
> >  				break;
> >  			}
> 
> 
> one thing to notice here is that 'ret = false' and 'ret = SWAP_FAIL'
> are not the same and must produce different results. `ret' is bool
> and SWAP_FAIL was 2. it's return 1 vs return 0, isn't it? so was
> there a bug before?

No, it was not a bug. Just my patchset changed return value meaning.
Look at this.
https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=148955552314806&w=2

So, false means SWAP_FAIL(ie., stop rmap scanning and bail out) now.

Thanks.