lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 1/2] Add notifiers for various swap events
On 09/24/2009 07:17 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:03:59 +0530
> Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org> wrote:
>
>> Add notifiers for following swap events:
>> - Swapon
>> - Swapoff
>> - When a swap slot is freed
>>
>> This is required for ramzswap module which implements RAM based block
>> devices to be used as swap disks. These devices require a notification
>> on these events to function properly (as shown in patch 2/2).
>>
>> Currently, I'm not sure if any of these event notifiers have any other
>> users. However, adding ramzswap specific hooks instead of this generic
>> approach resulted in a bad/hacky code.
>>
> Hmm ? if it's not necessary to make ramzswap as module, for-ramzswap-only
> code is much easier to read..
>

The patches posted earlier (v3 patches) inserts special hooks for swap slot
free event only. In this version, the callback is set when we get first R/W request.
Actually ramzswap needs callback for swapon/swapoff too but I just didn't do it.

Then Pekka posted test patch that allows setting this callback during swapon
itself. Looking that all these patches, I realized its already too messy even
if we just make everything ramzswap specific.
Just FYI, Pekka's test patch:
http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/48472/

Then I added this generic notifier interface which, compared to earlier version,
looks much cleaner. The code to add these notifiers is also very small.

>
>
>> For SWAP_EVENT_SLOT_FREE, callbacks are made under swap_lock. Currently, this
>> is not a problem since ramzswap is the only user and the callback it registers
>> can be safely made under this lock. However, if this event finds more users,
>> we might have to work on reducing contention on this lock.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org>
>>
>
> In general, notifier chain codes allowed to return NOTIFY_BAD.
> But this patch just assumes all chains should return NOTIFY_OK or
> just ignore return code.
>
> That's not good as generic interface, I think.


What action we can take here if the notifier_call_chain() returns an error (apart
from maybe printing an error)? Perhaps we can add a warning in case of swapon/off
events but not in case of swap slot free event which is called under swap_lock.



Thanks,
Nitin


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-24 05:15    [W:0.066 / U:0.760 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site