Re: [PATCH -mm -v10 1/3] mm, THP, swap: Delay splitting THP during swap out

[Minchan Kim]

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 08:25:56AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 09:56:54AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > Hi Michan,
> > 
> > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 08:53:32AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > @@ -1144,7 +1144,7 @@ void swap_free(swp_entry_t entry)
> > >  /*
> > >   * Called after dropping swapcache to decrease refcnt to swap entries.
> > >   */
> > > -void swapcache_free(swp_entry_t entry)
> > > +void __swapcache_free(swp_entry_t entry)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct swap_info_struct *p;
> > >  
> > > @@ -1156,7 +1156,7 @@ void swapcache_free(swp_entry_t entry)
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_THP_SWAP
> > > -void swapcache_free_cluster(swp_entry_t entry)
> > > +void __swapcache_free_cluster(swp_entry_t entry)
> > >  {
> > >  	unsigned long offset = swp_offset(entry);
> > >  	unsigned long idx = offset / SWAPFILE_CLUSTER;
> > > @@ -1182,6 +1182,14 @@ void swapcache_free_cluster(swp_entry_t entry)
> > >  }
> > >  #endif /* CONFIG_THP_SWAP */
> > >  
> > > +void swapcache_free(struct page *page, swp_entry_t entry)
> > > +{
> > > +	if (!PageTransHuge(page))
> > > +		__swapcache_free(entry);
> > > +	else
> > > +		__swapcache_free_cluster(entry);
> > > +}
> > 
> > I don't think this is cleaner :/

Let's see a example add_to_swap. Without it, it looks like that.

int add_to_swap(struct page *page)
{
        entry = get_swap_page(page);
        ..
        ..
fail:
        if (PageTransHuge(page))
                swapcache_free_cluster(entry);
        else
                swapcache_free(entry);
}

It doesn't looks good to me because get_swap_page hides
where entry allocation is from cluster or slot but when
we free the entry allocated, we should be aware of the
internal and call right function. :(

Do you think it's better still?