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 <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
Reviewed-by: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc: Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>
Cc: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>
Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>

Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>

mm/vmscan.c

@@ -2337,12 +2337,12 @@ move:
  * (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;