[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkZRR2wwCyu-99+3y7FFOKm7omBZrrj-G5_tb9vOivpjWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 11:30:25 -0800
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
To: Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, 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>, "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
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 9:28 PM Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 10:25 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 08:59:55AM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 5:52 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 10:20:29PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > > > > /* walk the tree and free everything */
> > > > > > spin_lock(&tree->lock);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + xas_for_each(&xas, e, ULONG_MAX)
> > > > >
> > > > > Why not use xa_for_each?
> > > >
> > > > xas_for_each() is O(n) while xa_for_each() is O(n log n), as mentioned
> > > > in the fine documentation. If you don't need to drop the lock while
> > > > in the body of the loop, always prefer xas_for_each().
> > >
> > > Thanks for pointing this out. Out of ignorance, I skipped reading the
> > > doc for this one and operated under the general assumption to use xa_*
> > > functions were possible.
> > >
> > > The doc also says we should hold either the RCU read lock or the
> > > xa_lock while iterating, we are not doing either here, no?
> >
> > I have no idea; I haven't studied the patches in detail yet. I have
> > debugging assertions for that, so I was assuming that Chris had been
> > developing with debug options turned on. If not, I guess the bots will
> > do it for him.
>
> It is fine now because we have the extra zswap tree spin lock. When we
> remove the zswap tree spin lock it does require RCU read lock. You are
> right I would get assertion failure.
I would imagine the assertions are that we are holding either the RCU
read lock or the xa_lock, how would holding the zswap tree lock help?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists