On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 15:55:33 +0800 Huang Ying [off-list ref] wrote:

The code path to reclaim the swap entry in free_swap_and_cache() is
almost same as that of __try_to_reclaim_swap().  The largest
difference is just coding style.  So the support to the additional
requirement of free_swap_and_cache() is added into
__try_to_reclaim_swap().  free_swap_and_cache() is changed to call
__try_to_reclaim_swap(), and delete the duplicated code.  This will
improve code readability and reduce the potential bugs.

There are 2 functionality differences between __try_to_reclaim_swap()
and swap entry reclaim code of free_swap_and_cache().

- free_swap_and_cache() only reclaims the swap entry if the page is
  unmapped or swap is getting full.  The support has been added into
  __try_to_reclaim_swap().

- try_to_free_swap() (called by __try_to_reclaim_swap()) checks
  pm_suspended_storage(), while free_swap_and_cache() not.  I think
  this is OK.  Because the page and the swap entry can be reclaimed
  later eventually.

hm.  Having functions take `mode' arguments which specify their actions
in this manner isn't popular (Linus ;)) but I guess the end result is
somewhat better.