Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] swap: shmem: remove SWAP_MAP_SHMEM

[Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>]

On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 7:04 PM Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 6:58 PM Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 6:33 PM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > I was debating between WARN-ing here, and returning -ENOMEM and
> > WARN-ing at shmem's callsite.
> >
> > My thinking is that if we return -ENOMEM here, it will work in the
> > current setup, for both shmem and other callsites. However, in the
> > future, if we add another user of swap_duplicate_nr(), this time
> > without guaranteeing that we won't need continuation, I think it won't
> > work unless we have the fallback logic in place as well:
> >
> > while (!err && __swap_duplicate(entry, 1, nr) == -ENOMEM)
> > err = add_swap_count_continuation(entry, GFP_ATOMIC);
>
> Sorry, I accidentally sent out the email without completing my explanation :)
>
> Anyway, the point being, with the current implementation, any new user
> would immediately hit a WARN and the implementer will know to check.
>
> Whereas if we return -ENOMEM in __swap_duplicate(), then I think we
> would just hang, no? We only try to add swap count continuation to the
> first entry only, which is not sufficient to fix the problem.
>
> I can probably whip up the fallback logic here, but it would be dead,
> untestable code (as it has no users, and I cannot even conceive one to
> test it). And the swap abstraction might render all of this moot
> anyway.

What I had in mind is not returning -ENOMEM at all, but something like
-EOPNOTSUPP. The swap_duplicate_nr() will just return the error to the
caller. All callers of swap_duplicate() and swap_duplicate_nr()
currently check the error except shmem.