Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm/zswap: refactor out __zswap_load()

[Yosry Ahmed]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 12:15 AM Chengming Zhou
<zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2023/12/14 08:52, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 8:18 PM Chengming Zhou
> > <zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> The zswap_load() and zswap_writeback_entry() have the same part that
> >> decompress the data from zswap_entry to page, so refactor out the
> >> common part as __zswap_load(entry, page).
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Reviewed-by: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > On a second look, there a few nits here.
> >
> > First I think it makes more sense to move this refactoring ahead of
> > reusing destmem. Right now, we add the destmem reuse to zswap_load()
> > only, then we do the refactor and zswap_writeback_entry() gets it
> > automatically, so there is a slight change coming to
> > zswap_writeback_entry() hidden in the refactoring patch.
> >
> > Let's refactor out __zswap_load() first, then reuse destmem in it.
>
> I tried but found that putting the __zswap_load() first would introduce
> another failure case in zswap_writeback_entry(), since the temporary
> memory allocation may fail.
>
> So instead, I also move the dstmem reusing in zswap_writeback_entry() to
> the dstmem reusing patch. Then this patch becomes having only refactoring.

We could have still refactored __zswap_load() first by making it
return an int initially when split, then void later. Anyway, it's not
a big deal. The new series looks fine.