Re: [PATCH] swap: cleanup get/put_swap_device usage

[Chris Li]

On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 08:23:18AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On 16.05.23 07:29, Huang Ying wrote:
> >> The general rule to use a swap entry is as follows.
> >> When we get a swap entry, if there isn't some other way to prevent
> >> swapoff, such as page lock for swap cache, page table lock, etc., the
> >> swap entry may become invalid because of swapoff.  Then, we need to
> >> enclose all swap related functions with get_swap_device() and
> >> put_swap_device(), unless the swap functions call
> >> get/put_swap_device() by themselves.
> >> Add the rule as comments of get_swap_device(), and cleanup some
> >> functions which call get/put_swap_device().
> >> 1. Enlarge the get/put_swap_device() protection range in
> >> __read_swap_cache_async().  This makes the function a little easier to
> >> be understood because we don't need to consider swapoff.  And this
> >> makes it possible to remove get/put_swap_device() calling in some
> >> function called by __read_swap_cache_async().
> >> 2. Remove get/put_swap_device() in __swap_count().  Which is call in
> >> do_swap_page() only, which encloses the call with get/put_swap_device()
> >> already.
> >> 3. Remove get/put_swap_device() in __swp_swapcount().  Which is call
> >> in __read_swap_cache_async() only, which encloses the call with
> >> get/put_swap_device() already.
> >> 4. Remove get/put_swap_device() in __swap_duplicate(). Which is
> >> called
> >> by
> >> - swap_shmem_alloc(): the swap cache is locked.
> >> - copy_nonpresent_pte() -> swap_duplicate() and try_to_unmap_one()
> >> ->
> >> swap_duplicate(): the page table lock is held.
> >> - __read_swap_cache_async() -> swapcache_prepare(): enclosed with
> >> get/put_swap_device() already.
> >> Other get/put_swap_device() usages are checked too.
> >
> > I suggest splitting this patch up into logical pieces as outlined here
> > by you already.

Agree with David here.

> 
> OK.  Will do that in the next version.

Your patch make sense to me.

Looking forward to your next version.

BTW, no relat to your patch, but just when I look
at your patch I notice is that we have too many swap
count functions.
The naming scheme is very confusing.

1) swap_count(), just mask out SWAP_HAS_CACHE

2) __swap_count() the name with underscore suggest it
is more internal.  But __swap_count() calls swap_count().
It is basically swap_count() with device lookup.

3) swap_swapcount()
similar to __swap_count() but with cluster level
locking if possible. otherwise fall back to device level locking.

4) __swp_swapcount()
swap_swapcount () with device lookup.  not consider continuing.
Again this function is more external while swap_swapcount()
is more internal.

5) swp_swapcount() similar to __swp_swapcount()
exact count consider continue

We should have a more consistent naming regarding swap count.
Device level, then cluster level, then entry level.

Also I consider the continuing is internal to the current
swap index implementation. If we have alternative swap file
implementation, we might not have count continuing at all.

Chris