From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC0DC47258 for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 08:23:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E136206E6 for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 08:23:00 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9E136206E6 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 1A99F8E0005; Wed, 6 May 2020 04:23:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 15A0F8E0003; Wed, 6 May 2020 04:23:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 0976A8E0005; Wed, 6 May 2020 04:23:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0143.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.143]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A778E0003 for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 04:22:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin11.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94581824559C for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 08:22:59 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76785603678.11.low12_372a295550023 X-HE-Tag: low12_372a295550023 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2966 Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by imf25.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 08:22:58 +0000 (UTC) IronPort-SDR: IS4oP4yPkKZxh0IxECL4FMVZ8K5nHeL4+VowJWWGmt8R8+IIBTTlKbhfcgkj+Hs70lpGyLeIrR ly7wQ1OoPu8Q== X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 May 2020 01:22:57 -0700 IronPort-SDR: zzl/daXJ0Oc7LgXfevtb/pXR40XCMnV3NryHB9opA31ZugUP9uNZBg7KMhVaAbYy82E8S3ZdAx 7m7bWACakU1Q== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,358,1583222400"; d="scan'208";a="461682447" Received: from yhuang-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yhuang-dev) ([10.239.159.23]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 May 2020 01:22:55 -0700 From: "Huang\, Ying" To: Wei Yang Cc: Andrew Morton , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/swapfile.c: count won't be bigger than SWAP_MAP_MAX References: <20200501015259.32237-1-richard.weiyang@gmail.com> <20200501015259.32237-3-richard.weiyang@gmail.com> <20200501154853.bca4cfb7b2558bd43a4942f3@linux-foundation.org> <20200502132911.u6y6hkh56ik4ojne@master> Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 16:22:54 +0800 In-Reply-To: <20200502132911.u6y6hkh56ik4ojne@master> (Wei Yang's message of "Sat, 2 May 2020 13:29:11 +0000") Message-ID: <87k11pv5ep.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Wei Yang writes: > On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 03:48:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >>On Fri, 1 May 2020 01:52:59 +0000 Wei Yang wrote: >> >>> When the condition is true, there are two possibilities: >> >>I'm struggling with this one. >> >>> 1. count == SWAP_MAP_BAD >>> 2. count == (SWAP_MAP_MAX & COUNT_CONTINUED) == SWAP_MAP_SHMEM >> >>I'm not sure what 2. is trying to say. For a start, (SWAP_MAP_MAX & >>COUNT_CONTINUED) is zero. I guess it meant "|"? > > Oops, you are right. It should be (SWAP_MAP_MAX | COUNT_CONTINUED). > > Sorry for the confusion. > >> >>Also, the return value documentation says we return EINVAL for migration >>entries. Where's that happening, or is the comment out of date? >> > > Not paid attention to this. > > Take look into the code, I don't find a relationship between the swap count > and migration. Seems we just make a migration entry but not duplicate it. > If my understanding is correct. Per my understanding, one functionality of the error path is to catch the behavior that shouldn't happen at all. For example, if __swap_duplicate() is called for the migration entry because of some race condition. Best Regards, Huang, Ying