Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm/shmem, swap: avoid redundant Xarray lookup during swapin

[Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>]

On 18/06/25 12:52 pm, Kairui Song wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 3:17 PM Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 18/06/25 12:05 am, Kairui Song wrote:
>>> From: Kairui Song <kasong@tencent.com>
>>>
>>> Currently shmem calls xa_get_order to get the swap radix entry order,
>>> requiring a full tree walk. This can be easily combined with the swap
>>> entry value checking (shmem_confirm_swap) to avoid the duplicated
>>> lookup, which should improve the performance.
>> Nice spot!
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <kasong@tencent.com>
>>> ---
>>>    mm/shmem.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>>    1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
>>> index 4e7ef343a29b..0ad49e57f736 100644
>>> --- a/mm/shmem.c
>>> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
>>> @@ -505,15 +505,27 @@ static int shmem_replace_entry(struct address_space *mapping,
>>>
>>>    /*
>>>     * Sometimes, before we decide whether to proceed or to fail, we must check
>>> - * that an entry was not already brought back from swap by a racing thread.
>>> + * that an entry was not already brought back or split by a racing thread.
>>>     *
>>>     * Checking folio is not enough: by the time a swapcache folio is locked, it
>>>     * might be reused, and again be swapcache, using the same swap as before.
>>> + * Returns the swap entry's order if it still presents, else returns -1.
>>>     */
>>> -static bool shmem_confirm_swap(struct address_space *mapping,
>>> -                            pgoff_t index, swp_entry_t swap)
>>> +static int shmem_swap_check_entry(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t index,
>>> +                               swp_entry_t swap)
>> I think the function name shmem_confirm_swap is already good enough? Anyhow the
>> changed name should at least be shmem_check_entry_is_swap.
>>
> Good, I can keep the function name unchanged or follow your
> suggestion, I thought a `confirm` function returning non-binary return

True. I will vote for keeping the name unchanged; you have already documented
the return value so it should be fine. Just can you put a new line between
"Returns the swap entry's order..." and the previous line to make it clear.

> value may look strange. I'm terrible at naming things :P