On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 11:43 +0800, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:

On 2012-09-27 19:35, Paul Bolle wrote:

quoted

I think setting pages_to_unuse to zero here is not needed. It is
initiated to zero in frontswap_shrink() and hasn't been touched since.
See my patch at https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/27/250.

Yes, it's unneeded. But I didn't see warning as you said in above link 
when run 'make V=1 mm/frontswap.o'.

Not even before applying your patch? Anyhow, after applying your patch
the warnings gone here too.

quoted

quoted

-		return 0;
+		return 1;
  	}
  	total_pages_to_unuse = total_pages - target_pages;
  	return __frontswap_unuse_pages(total_pages_to_unuse, pages_to_unuse, type);

@@ -302,7 +307,7 @@ void frontswap_shrink(unsigned long target_pages)
  	spin_lock(&swap_lock);
  	ret = __frontswap_shrink(target_pages,&pages_to_unuse,&type);
  	spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
-	if (ret == 0&&  pages_to_unuse)
+	if (ret == 0)
  		try_to_unuse(type, true, pages_to_unuse);
  	return;
  }

Are you sure pages_to_unuse won't be zero here? I've stared quite a bit
at __frontswap_unuse_pages() and it's not obvious pages_to_unuse (there
also called unused) will never be zero when that function returns zero.

pages_to_unuse==0 means all pages need to be unused.

Ah, now I see. I was focusing on changing the code as little as possible
and didn't realize that you actually wanted to change behavior here.
Looking at it again this change makes sense (though I hardly understand
frontswap, so I can't properly evaluate it). Anyhow, as I said, your
patch also does what I care about - silence a warning - so we might as
well forget about my patch.
 
Thanks,


Paul Bolle

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>