Re: [PATCH v2] mm/swapfile.c: simplify the scan loop in scan_swap_map_slots()

Huang, Ying
2020-04-24T02:03:20Z

Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 01:57:34PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> After commit c60aa176c6de8 ("swapfile: swap allocation cycle if
>>> nonrot"), swap allocation is cyclic. Current approach is done with two
>>> separate loop on the upper and lower half. This looks a little
>>> redundant.
>>
>>I can understand that the redundant code doesn't smell good. But I
>>don't think the new code is easier to be understood than the original
>>one.
>>
>>> From another point of view, the loop iterates [lowest_bit, highest_bit]
>>> range starting with (offset + 1) but except scan_base. So we can
>>> simplify the loop with condition (next_offset() != scan_base) by
>>> introducing next_offset() which makes sure offset fit in that range
>>> with correct order.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
>>> CC: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
>>> CC: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> v2:
>>> * return scan_base if the lower part is eaten
>>> * only start over when iterating on the upper part
>>> ---
>>> mm/swapfile.c | 31 ++++++++++++++-----------------
>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
>>> index f903e5a165d5..0005a4a1c1b4 100644
>>> --- a/mm/swapfile.c
>>> +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
>>> @@ -729,6 +729,19 @@ static void swap_range_free(struct swap_info_struct *si, unsigned long offset,
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static unsigned long next_offset(struct swap_info_struct *si,
>>> + unsigned long *offset, unsigned long scan_base)
>>> +{
>>> + /* only start over when iterating on the upper part */
>>> + if (++(*offset) > si->highest_bit && *offset > scan_base) {
>>> + *offset = si->lowest_bit;
>>> + /* someone has eaten the lower part */
>>> + if (si->lowest_bit >= scan_base)
>>> + return scan_base;
>>> + }
>>
>>if "offset > si->highest_bit" is true and "offset < scan_base" is true,
>>scan_base need to be returned.
>>
>
> When this case would happen in the original code?

In the original code, the loop can still stop.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

>>Again, the new code doesn't make it easier to find this kind of issues.
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>Huang, Ying