linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: zswap: multiple zpool support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 2 Jun 2023 14:34:10 -0400
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:     Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
        Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>,
        Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@...sulko.com>,
        Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>,
        Domenico Cerasuolo <cerasuolodomenico@...il.com>,
        Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: zswap: multiple zpool support

On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 09:59:20AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 9:49 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
> > Again, what about the zswap_tree.lock and swap_info_struct.lock?
> > They're the same scope unless you use multiple swap files. Would it
> > make sense to tie pools to trees, so that using multiple swapfiles for
> > concurrency purposes also implies this optimization?
> 
> Yeah, using multiple swapfiles helps with those locks, but it doesn't
> help with the zpool lock.
> 
> I am reluctant to take this path because I am trying to get rid of
> zswap's dependency on swapfiles to begin with, and have it act as its
> own standalone swapping backend. If I am successful, then having one
> zpool per zswap_tree is just a temporary fix.

What about making the pools per-cpu?

This would scale nicely with the machine size. And we commonly deal
with for_each_cpu() loops and per-cpu data structures, so have good
developer intuition about what's reasonable to squeeze into those.

It would eliminate the lock contention, for everybody, right away, and
without asking questions.

It would open the door to all kinds of locking optimizations on top.