Message-ID: <62bcf150-08ee-41e8-be77-57ef3bac116d@bytedance.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 20:16:08 +0800
From: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>,
 Chris Li <chriscli@...gle.com>, Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
 Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>, Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@...sulko.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] mm/zswap: cleanup zswap_reclaim_entry()

On 2023/12/19 04:52, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 6:58 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 06:39:13AM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 6:03 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 02:41:26PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 2:23 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 17:02:25 -0800 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 8:18 PM Chengming Zhou
>>>>>>> <zhouchengming@...edance.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also after the common decompress part goes to __zswap_load(), we can
>>>>>>>> cleanup the zswap_reclaim_entry() a little.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you mean zswap_writeback_entry(), same for the commit title.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I updated my copy of the changelog, thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -       /*
>>>>>>>> -        * If we get here because the page is already in swapcache, a
>>>>>>>> -        * load may be happening concurrently. It is safe and okay to
>>>>>>>> -        * not free the entry. It is also okay to return !0.
>>>>>>>> -        */
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This comment should be moved above the failure check of
>>>>>>> __read_swap_cache_async() above, not completely removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, thanks a lot. Although I think a new version is needed anyway to
>>>>> address other comments.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- a/mm/zswap.c~mm-zswap-cleanup-zswap_reclaim_entry-fix
>>>>>> +++ a/mm/zswap.c
>>>>>> @@ -1457,8 +1457,14 @@ static int zswap_writeback_entry(struct
>>>>>>         mpol = get_task_policy(current);
>>>>>>         page = __read_swap_cache_async(swpentry, GFP_KERNEL, mpol,
>>>>>>                                 NO_INTERLEAVE_INDEX, &page_was_allocated, true);
>>>>>> -       if (!page)
>>>>>> +       if (!page) {
>>>>>> +               /*
>>>>>> +                * If we get here because the page is already in swapcache, a
>>>>>> +                * load may be happening concurrently. It is safe and okay to
>>>>>> +                * not free the entry. It is also okay to return !0.
>>>>>> +                */
>>>>>>                 return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>> +       }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         /* Found an existing page, we raced with load/swapin */
>>>>>>         if (!page_was_allocated) {
>>>>
>>>> That's the wrong branch, no?
>>>>
>>>> !page -> -ENOMEM
>>>>
>>>> page && !page_was_allocated -> already in swapcache
>>>
>>> Ah yes, my bad.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I don't really get the comment. What does it mean that
>>>> it's "okay" not to free the entry? There is a put, which may or may
>>>> not free the entry if somebody else is using it. Is it explaining how
>>>> lifetime works for refcounted objects? I'm similarly confused by the
>>>> "it's okay" to return non-zero. What is that trying to convey?
>>>>
>>>> Deletion seemed like the right choice here, IMO ;)
>>>
>>> It's not the clearest of comments for sure. I think it is just trying
>>> to say that it is okay not to write back the entry from zswap and to
>>> fail, because the caller will just try another page. I did not like
>>> silently deleting the comment during the refactoring. How about
>>> rewriting it to something like:
>>>
>>> /*
>>>  * If we get here because the page is already in the swapcache, a
>>>  * load may be happening concurrently. Skip this page, the caller
>>>  * will move on to a different page.
>>>  */
>>
>> Well there is this one already on the branch:
>>
>> /* Found an existing page, we raced with load/swapin */
>>
>> which covers the first half. The unspoken assumption there is that
>> writeback is an operation for an aged out page, while swapin means the
>> age just got reset to 0. Maybe it makes sense to elaborate on that?
> 
> How about the following diff? This applies on top of Andrew's fix:
> 

Reviewed-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>

The latest v3 also put the comments on the wrong branch, and this diff
could be folded to fix it.

v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231213-zswap-dstmem-v3-5-4eac09b94ece@bytedance.com/

> diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c
> index e8f8f47596dae..8228a0b370979 100644
> --- a/mm/zswap.c
> +++ b/mm/zswap.c
> @@ -1458,15 +1458,14 @@ static int zswap_writeback_entry(struct
> zswap_entry *entry,
>         page = __read_swap_cache_async(swpentry, GFP_KERNEL, mpol,
>                                 NO_INTERLEAVE_INDEX, &page_was_allocated, true);
>         if (!page) {
> -               /*
> -                * If we get here because the page is already in swapcache, a
> -                * load may be happening concurrently. It is safe and okay to
> -                * not free the entry. It is also okay to return !0.
> -                */
>                 return -ENOMEM;
>         }
> 
> -       /* Found an existing page, we raced with load/swapin */
> +       /*
> +        * Found an existing page, we raced with load/swapin. We generally
> +        * writeback cold pages from zswap, and swapin means the page just
> +        * became hot. Skip this page and let the caller find another one.
> +        */
>         if (!page_was_allocated) {
>                 put_page(page);
>                 return -EEXIST;

Powered by blists - more mailing lists