Message-ID: <1496dce3-a4bb-4ccf-92d6-701a45b67da3@bytedance.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:30:31 +0800
From: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>,
 Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: zswap: remove unnecessary tree cleanups in
 zswap_swapoff()

On 2024/1/25 15:53, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I also thought about this problem for some time, maybe something like below
>> can be changed to fix it? It's likely I missed something, just some thoughts.
>>
>> IMHO, the problem is caused by the different way in which we use zswap entry
>> in the writeback, that should be much like zswap_load().
>>
>> The zswap_load() comes in with the folio locked in swap cache, so it has
>> stable zswap tree to search and lock... But in writeback case, we don't,
>> shrink_memcg_cb() comes in with only a zswap entry with lru list lock held,
>> then release lru lock to get tree lock, which maybe freed already.
>>
>> So we should change here, we read swpentry from entry with lru list lock held,
>> then release lru lock, to try to lock corresponding folio in swap cache,
>> if we success, the following things is much the same like zswap_load().
>> We can get tree lock, to recheck the invalidate race, if no race happened,
>> we can make sure the entry is still right and get refcount of it, then
>> release the tree lock.
> 
> Hmm I think you may be onto something here. Moving the swap cache
> allocation ahead before referencing the tree should give us the same
> guarantees as zswap_load() indeed. We can also consolidate the
> invalidate race checks (right now we have one in shrink_memcg_cb() and
> another one inside zswap_writeback_entry()).

Right, if we successfully lock folio in the swap cache, we can get the
tree lock and check the invalidate race, only once.

> 
> We will have to be careful about the error handling path to make sure
> we delete the folio from the swap cache only after we know the tree
> won't be referenced anymore. Anyway, I think this can work.

Yes, we can't reference tree if we early return or after unlocking folio,
since the reference of zswap entry can't protect the tree.

> 
> On a separate note, I think there is a bug in zswap_writeback_entry()
> when we delete a folio from the swap cache. I think we are missing a
> folio_unlock() there.

Ah, yes, and folio_put().

> 
>>
>> The main differences between this writeback with zswap_load() is the handling
>> of lru entry and the tree lifetime. The whole zswap_load() function has the
>> stable reference of zswap tree, but it's not for shrink_memcg_cb() bottom half
>> after __swap_writepage() since we unlock the folio after that. So we can't
>> reference the tree after that.
>>
>> This problem is easy to fix, we can zswap_invalidate_entry(tree, entry) early
>> in tree lock, since thereafter writeback can't fail. BTW, I think we should
>> also zswap_invalidate_entry() early in zswap_load() and only support the
>> zswap_exclusive_loads_enabled mode, but that's another topic.
> 
> zswap_invalidate_entry() actually doesn't seem to be using the tree at all.
> 
>>
>> The second difference is the handling of lru entry, which is easy that we
>> just zswap_lru_del() in tree lock.
> 
> Why do we need zswap_lru_del() at all? We should have already isolated
> the entry at that point IIUC.

I was thinking how to handle the "zswap_lru_putback()" if not writeback,
in which case we can't use the entry actually since we haven't got reference
of it. So we can don't isolate at the entry, and only zswap_lru_del() when
we are going to writeback actually.

Thanks!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists