Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 19:23:52 +0000
From: Yosry Ahmed <[email protected]>
To: Chris Li <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected], Wei =?utf-8?B?WHXvv7w=?= <[email protected]>,
Yu Zhao <[email protected]>, Greg Thelen <[email protected]>,
Chun-Tse Shao <[email protected]>,
Suren =?utf-8?B?QmFnaGRhc2FyeWFu77+8?= <[email protected]>,
Brain Geffon <[email protected]>, Minchan Kim <[email protected]>,
Michal Hocko <[email protected]>,
Mel Gorman <[email protected]>,
Huang Ying <[email protected]>, Nhat Pham <[email protected]>,
Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>,
Kairui Song <[email protected]>,
Zhongkun He <[email protected]>,
Kemeng Shi <[email protected]>,
Barry Song <[email protected]>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <[email protected]>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <[email protected]>,
Joel Fernandes <[email protected]>,
Chengming Zhou <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: zswap.c: add xarray tree to zswap
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAJD7tkYEx57CPBoaN9GW4M3Mx-+jEsOMWJ02nLKSKD-MLb-WPA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAF8kJuO5tAqwyKQK7AasWgs3Ohfc2osD9oX0m8YAkfsAZsjjyQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To:
<CAF8kJuO5tAqwyKQK7AasWgs3Ohfc2osD9oX0m8YAkfsAZsjjyQ@mail.gmail.com>
> > > -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.
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.