linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: zswap.c: add xarray tree to zswap

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]

Message-ID: <CAJD7tkY6K8q1t-nzZ7oJu-f3OgS654PiOcQgU=E6f+0joYSzPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 11:29:42 -0800
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
To: Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>, 
	Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, 
	Chun-Tse Shao <ctshao@...gle.com>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, 
	Brain Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, 
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>, Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, 
	Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>, 
	Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@...edance.com>, Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>, 
	Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>, "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>, 
	"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, 
	Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: zswap.c: add xarray tree to zswap

My previous email got messed up, sorry.

> > > @@ -462,9 +463,9 @@ static void zswap_lru_putback(struct list_lru *list_lru,
> > >  /*********************************
> > >  * rbtree functions
> > >  **********************************/
> > > -static struct zswap_entry *zswap_rb_search(struct rb_root *root, pgoff_t offset)
> > > +static struct zswap_entry *zswap_search(struct zswap_tree *tree, pgoff_t offset)
> >
> > Let's change the zswap_rb_* prefixes to zswap_tree_* instead of just
> > zswap_*. Otherwise, it will be confusing to have both zswap_store and
> > zswap_insert (as well as zswap_load and zswap_search).
>
> How about zswap_xa_* ?

SGTM.

> >
> > [..]
> > > @@ -1790,15 +1808,21 @@ void zswap_swapon(int type)
> > >  void zswap_swapoff(int type)
> > >  {
> > >         struct zswap_tree *tree = zswap_trees[type];
> > > -       struct zswap_entry *entry, *n;
> > > +       struct zswap_entry *entry, *e, *n;
> > > +       XA_STATE(xas, tree ? &tree->xarray : NULL, 0);
> > >
> > >         if (!tree)
> > >                 return;
> > >
> > >         /* walk the tree and free everything */
> > >         spin_lock(&tree->lock);
> > > +
> > > +       xas_for_each(&xas, e, ULONG_MAX)
> >
> > Why not use xa_for_each?
> >
> > > +               zswap_invalidate_entry(tree, e);
> > > +
> > >         rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe(entry, n, &tree->rbroot, rbnode)
> > > -               zswap_free_entry(entry);
> >
> > Replacing zswap_free_entry() with zswap_invalidate_entry() is a
> > behavioral change that should be done separate from this series, but I
> > am wondering why it's needed. IIUC, the swapoff code should be making
> > sure there are no ongoing swapin/swapout operations, and there are no
> > pages left in zswap to writeback.
> >
> > Is it the case that swapoff may race with writeback, such that
> > writeback is holding the last remaining ref after zswap_invalidate()
> > is called, and then zswap_swapoff() is called freeing the zswap entry
> > while writeback is still accessing it?
>
> For the RB tree the mapping is stored in the zswap entry as RB node.
> That is different from xarray. Xarry stores the mapping outside of
> zswap entry. Just freeing the entry does not remove the mapping from
> xarray. Therefore it needs to call zswap_invalidate_entry() to remove
> the entry from the xarray. I could call zswap_erase() then free entry.
> I just think zswap_invalidate_entry() is more consistent with the rest
> of the code.

I see, but it's not clear to me if the xarray is being properly
cleaned up in this case.

Do we have to call xa_destroy() anyway to make sure everything is
cleaned up in the xarray? In that case, we can just do that after the
loop.