[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACSyD1OHLjM8SRURe4QdY5d=JNPY+ZS_goXOKOxO6nuBzxnoHg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 10:57:00 +0800
From: Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@...edance.com>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Cc: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
sjenning@...hat.com, ddstreet@...e.org, vitaly.wool@...sulko.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, weijie.yang@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] mm: zswap: fix the lack of page lru flag
in zswap_writeback_entry
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:30 AM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 7:13 PM Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@...edance.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Yosry, glad to hear from you and happy new year!
> >
> > > Sorry for being late to the party. It seems to me that all of this
> > > hassle can be avoided if lru_add_fn() did the right thing in this case
> > > and added the folio to the tail of the lru directly. I am no expert in
> > > how the page flags work here, but it seems like we can do something
> > > like this in lru_add_fn():
> > >
> > > if (folio_test_reclaim(folio))
> > > lruvec_add_folio_tail(lruvec, folio);
> > > else
> > > lruvec_add_folio(lruvec, folio);
> > >
> > > I think the main problem with this is that PG_reclaim is an alias to
> > > PG_readahead, so readahead pages will also go to the tail of the lru,
> > > which is probably not good.
> >
> > Agree with you, I will try it.
>
> +Matthew Wilcox
>
> I think we need to figure out if it's okay to do this first, because
> it will affect pages with PG_readahead as well.
Yes, I've tested it and there is one more thing
that needs to be modified.
+ if (folio_test_reclaim(folio))
+ lruvec_add_folio_tail(lruvec, folio);
+ else
+ lruvec_add_folio(lruvec, folio);
@@ -1583,10 +1583,8 @@ void folio_end_writeback(struct folio *folio)
* a gain to justify taking an atomic operation penalty at the
* end of every folio writeback.
*/
- if (folio_test_reclaim(folio)) {
+ if (folio_test_reclaim(folio) && folio_rotate_reclaimable(folio))
folio_clear_reclaim(folio);
- folio_rotate_reclaimable(folio);
- }
-void folio_rotate_reclaimable(struct folio *folio)
+bool folio_rotate_reclaimable(struct folio *folio)
{
if (success)
+ return true;
}
+ return false;
}
>
> >
> > >
> > > A more intrusive alternative is to introduce a folio_lru_add_tail()
> > > variant that always adds pages to the tail, and optionally call that
> > > from __read_swap_cache_async() instead of folio_lru_add() based on a
> > > new boolean argument. The zswap code can set that boolean argument
> > > during writeback to make sure newly allocated folios are always added
> > > to the tail of the lru.
> >
> > I have the same idea and also find it intrusive. I think the first solution
> > is very good and I will try it. If it works, I will send the next version.
>
> One way to avoid introducing folio_lru_add_tail() and blumping a
> boolean from zswap is to have a per-task context (similar to
> memalloc_nofs_save()), that makes folio_add_lru() automatically add
> folios to the tail of the LRU. I am not sure if this is an acceptable
> approach though in terms of per-task flags and such.
I got it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists