lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] Add swap slot free callback to block_device_operations
Hi.

On 07/05/10 17:25, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> This callback is required when RAM based devices are used as swap disks.
> One such device is ramzswap which is used as compressed in-memory swap
> disk. For such devices, we need a callback as soon as a swap slot is no
> longer used to allow freeing memory allocated for this slot. Without this
> callback, stale data can quickly accumulate in memory defeating the whole
> purpose of such devices.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nitin Gupta<ngupta@vflare.org>
> ---
> include/linux/blkdev.h | 2 ++
> mm/swapfile.c | 4 ++++
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> index 6690e8b..413284a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
> +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> @@ -1287,6 +1287,8 @@ struct block_device_operations {
> unsigned long long);
> int (*revalidate_disk) (struct gendisk *);
> int (*getgeo)(struct block_device *, struct hd_geometry *);
> + /* this callback is with swap_lock and sometimes page table lock held */
> + void (*swap_slot_free_notify) (struct block_device *, unsigned long);
> struct module *owner;
> };
>
> diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
> index ecb069e..f5ccc47 100644
> --- a/mm/swapfile.c
> +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
> @@ -574,6 +574,7 @@ static unsigned char swap_entry_free(struct swap_info_struct *p,
>
> /* free if no reference */
> if (!usage) {
> + struct gendisk *disk = p->bdev->bd_disk;
> if (offset< p->lowest_bit)
> p->lowest_bit = offset;
> if (offset> p->highest_bit)
> @@ -583,6 +584,9 @@ static unsigned char swap_entry_free(struct swap_info_struct *p,
> swap_list.next = p->type;
> nr_swap_pages++;
> p->inuse_pages--;
> + if ((p->flags& SWP_BLKDEV)&&
> + disk->fops->swap_slot_free_notify)
> + disk->fops->swap_slot_free_notify(p->bdev, offset);

Is this p->flags & SWP_BLKDEV logic reversed? (Don't you want the
notifier called for devices that aren't backed by a block device?)

I also wonder whether leaving the p->flags & SWP_BLKDEV part out might
be a good idea. Other potential notifier users?

Regards,

Nigel


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-07 11:35    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans