On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 03:49:04PM +0000, Chengming Zhou wrote:
> cat /sys/kernel/debug/zswap/duplicate_entry
> 2086447
>
> When testing, the duplicate_entry value is very high, but no warning
> message in the kernel log. From the comment of duplicate_entry
> "Duplicate store was encountered (rare)", it seems something goes wrong.
>
> Actually it's incremented in the beginning of zswap_store(), which found
> its zswap entry has already on the tree. And this is a normal case,
> since the folio could leave zswap entry on the tree after swapin,
> later it's dirtied and swapout/zswap_store again, found its original
> zswap entry. (Maybe we can reuse it instead of invalidating it?)
Probably not worth it, especially after the next patch.
> So duplicate_entry should be only incremented in the real bug case,
> which already have "WARN_ON(1)", it looks redundant to count bug case,
> so this patch just remove it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <[email protected]>
Either way, I agree that the WARN_ON() is more useful to point out a
bug than a counter.
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>
On 2024/2/2 01:55, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 03:49:04PM +0000, Chengming Zhou wrote:
>> cat /sys/kernel/debug/zswap/duplicate_entry
>> 2086447
>>
>> When testing, the duplicate_entry value is very high, but no warning
>> message in the kernel log. From the comment of duplicate_entry
>> "Duplicate store was encountered (rare)", it seems something goes wrong.
>>
>> Actually it's incremented in the beginning of zswap_store(), which found
>> its zswap entry has already on the tree. And this is a normal case,
>> since the folio could leave zswap entry on the tree after swapin,
>> later it's dirtied and swapout/zswap_store again, found its original
>> zswap entry. (Maybe we can reuse it instead of invalidating it?)
>
> Probably not worth it, especially after the next patch.
You are right, not worth it.
>
>> So duplicate_entry should be only incremented in the real bug case,
>> which already have "WARN_ON(1)", it looks redundant to count bug case,
>> so this patch just remove it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <[email protected]>
>
> Either way, I agree that the WARN_ON() is more useful to point out a
> bug than a counter.
>
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>
Thanks!