From be2d57563822b7e00b2b16d9354637c4b6d6d5cc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Baolin Wang Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 18:39:34 +0800 Subject: mm: change to return bool for folio_isolate_lru() Patch series "Change the return value for page isolation functions", v3. Now the page isolation functions did not return a boolean to indicate success or not, instead it will return a negative error when failed to isolate a page. So below code used in most places seem a boolean success/failure thing, which can confuse people whether the isolation is successful. if (folio_isolate_lru(folio)) continue; Moreover the page isolation functions only return 0 or -EBUSY, and most users did not care about the negative error except for few users, thus we can convert all page isolation functions to return a boolean value, which can remove the confusion to make code more clear. No functional changes intended in this patch series. This patch (of 4): Now the folio_isolate_lru() did not return a boolean value to indicate isolation success or not, however below code checking the return value can make people think that it was a boolean success/failure thing, which makes people easy to make mistakes (see the fix patch[1]). if (folio_isolate_lru(folio)) continue; Thus it's better to check the negative error value expilictly returned by folio_isolate_lru(), which makes code more clear per Linus's suggestion[2]. Moreover Matthew suggested we can convert the isolation functions to return a boolean[3], since most users did not care about the negative error value, and can also remove the confusing of checking return value. So this patch converts the folio_isolate_lru() to return a boolean value, which means return 'true' to indicate the folio isolation is successful, and 'false' means a failure to isolation. Meanwhile changing all users' logic of checking the isolation state. No functional changes intended. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230131063206.28820-1-Kuan-Ying.Lee@mediatek.com/T/#u [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiBrY+O-4=2mrbVyxR+hOqfdJ=Do6xoucfJ9_5az01L4Q@mail.gmail.com/ [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y+sTFqwMNAjDvxw3@casper.infradead.org/ Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/cover.1676424378.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/8a4e3679ed4196168efadf7ea36c038f2f7d5aa9.1676424378.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang Reviewed-by: SeongJae Park Acked-by: David Hildenbrand Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) Acked-by: Linus Torvalds Cc: Johannes Weiner Cc: Miaohe Lin Cc: Michal Hocko Cc: Mike Kravetz Cc: Muchun Song Cc: Naoya Horiguchi Cc: Oscar Salvador Cc: Roman Gushchin Cc: Shakeel Butt Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton --- mm/vmscan.c | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) (limited to 'mm/vmscan.c') diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index 098c79129c426b..9c1c5e8b24b8f5 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -2337,12 +2337,12 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, * (2) The lru_lock must not be held. * (3) Interrupts must be enabled. * - * Return: 0 if the folio was removed from an LRU list. - * -EBUSY if the folio was not on an LRU list. + * Return: true if the folio was removed from an LRU list. + * false if the folio was not on an LRU list. */ -int folio_isolate_lru(struct folio *folio) +bool folio_isolate_lru(struct folio *folio) { - int ret = -EBUSY; + bool ret = false; VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!folio_ref_count(folio), folio); @@ -2353,7 +2353,7 @@ int folio_isolate_lru(struct folio *folio) lruvec = folio_lruvec_lock_irq(folio); lruvec_del_folio(lruvec, folio); unlock_page_lruvec_irq(lruvec); - ret = 0; + ret = true; } return ret; -- cgit 1.2.3-korg