There does not appear to be a technical reason to not
allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the
zram device is initialized.
This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned
as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that
event backing_dev would return -EEXIST.
Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <[email protected]>
---
drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
index fcaf2750f68f..12b4555ee079 100644
--- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
@@ -462,9 +462,9 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev,
return -ENOMEM;
down_write(&zram->init_lock);
- if (init_done(zram)) {
- pr_info("Can't setup backing device for initialized device\n");
- err = -EBUSY;
+ if (zram->backing_dev) {
+ pr_info("Backing device is already assigned\n");
+ err = -EEXIST;
goto out;
}
--
2.33.0.800.g4c38ced690-goog
On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 11:16:27 -0700 Brian Geffon <[email protected]> wrote:
> There does not appear to be a technical reason to not
> allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the
> zram device is initialized.
>
> This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned
> as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that
> event backing_dev would return -EEXIST.
Why is this useful?
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 2:29 PM Minchan Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:16:27AM -0700, Brian Geffon wrote:
> > There does not appear to be a technical reason to not
> > allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the
> > zram device is initialized.
> >
> > This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned
> > as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that
> > event backing_dev would return -EEXIST.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 6 +++---
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > index fcaf2750f68f..12b4555ee079 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > @@ -462,9 +462,9 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev,
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > - if (init_done(zram)) {
> > - pr_info("Can't setup backing device for initialized device\n");
> > - err = -EBUSY;
> > + if (zram->backing_dev) {
> > + pr_info("Backing device is already assigned\n");
> > + err = -EEXIST;
> > goto out;
>
> Hi Brian,
>
Hi Minchan,
> I am worry about the inconsistency with other interface of current zram
> set up. They were supposed to set it up before zram disksize setting
> because it makes code more simple/maintainalbe in that we don't need
> to check some feature on the fly.
>
> Let's think about when zram extends the writeback of incompressible
> page on demand. The write path will need the backing_dev under
> down_read(&zarm->init_lock) or other conditional variable to check
> whether the feature is enabled or not on the fly.
I don't follow what you mean by that, writeback_store already holds
down_read(&zarm->init_lock).
Brian
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 7:22 PM Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 11:16:27 -0700 Brian Geffon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > There does not appear to be a technical reason to not
> > allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the
> > zram device is initialized.
> >
> > This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned
> > as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that
> > event backing_dev would return -EEXIST.
>
> Why is this useful?
Hi Andrew,
In the case of ChromeOS we're backing zram with a loop device. For us,
having the ability to size the backing file after the system has fully
booted proves to be very useful. Also, doing so later allows us to
place users in different experimental groups while we evaluate the
performance of swapping to disk in the wild. Both of these things
would be much harder if we did it early on when swap is first brought
up or would require us to delay starting swap altogether.
Brian
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:16:27AM -0700, Brian Geffon wrote:
> There does not appear to be a technical reason to not
> allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the
> zram device is initialized.
>
> This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned
> as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that
> event backing_dev would return -EEXIST.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> index fcaf2750f68f..12b4555ee079 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> @@ -462,9 +462,9 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev,
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> - if (init_done(zram)) {
> - pr_info("Can't setup backing device for initialized device\n");
> - err = -EBUSY;
> + if (zram->backing_dev) {
> + pr_info("Backing device is already assigned\n");
> + err = -EEXIST;
> goto out;
Hi Brian,
I am worry about the inconsistency with other interface of current zram
set up. They were supposed to set it up before zram disksize setting
because it makes code more simple/maintainalbe in that we don't need
to check some feature on the fly.
Let's think about when zram extends the writeback of incompressible
page on demand. The write path will need the backing_dev under
down_read(&zarm->init_lock) or other conditional variable to check
whether the feature is enabled or not on the fly.
It adds locking dependency as well as performance overhead(I don't
think it's a good deal that scarfice hot path for rare event even
though it's not that big).
On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 02:40:52PM -0400, Brian Geffon wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 2:29 PM Minchan Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:16:27AM -0700, Brian Geffon wrote:
> > > There does not appear to be a technical reason to not
> > > allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the
> > > zram device is initialized.
> > >
> > > This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned
> > > as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that
> > > event backing_dev would return -EEXIST.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 6 +++---
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > index fcaf2750f68f..12b4555ee079 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > @@ -462,9 +462,9 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev,
> > > return -ENOMEM;
> > >
> > > down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > > - if (init_done(zram)) {
> > > - pr_info("Can't setup backing device for initialized device\n");
> > > - err = -EBUSY;
> > > + if (zram->backing_dev) {
> > > + pr_info("Backing device is already assigned\n");
> > > + err = -EEXIST;
> > > goto out;
> >
> > Hi Brian,
> >
>
> Hi Minchan,
>
> > I am worry about the inconsistency with other interface of current zram
> > set up. They were supposed to set it up before zram disksize setting
> > because it makes code more simple/maintainalbe in that we don't need
> > to check some feature on the fly.
> >
> > Let's think about when zram extends the writeback of incompressible
> > page on demand. The write path will need the backing_dev under
> > down_read(&zarm->init_lock) or other conditional variable to check
> > whether the feature is enabled or not on the fly.
>
> I don't follow what you mean by that, writeback_store already holds
> down_read(&zarm->init_lock).
I should have explained a bit more. Sorry about that.
I am thinking about a feature to deal with incompressible page.
Let's have an example to handle incompressible page for that.
zram_bvec_rw
zram_bvec_write
if (comp_len >= huge_class)
zs_page_writeback
down_read(&zram->init_lock) or some other way
It's just idea for incompressible page but we might intorduce
the way for other compresible pages, too at some condition.
Hi Minchan,
Thank you for expanding on that. The only situation where there will
be lock contention that is problematic is when we're storing the
backing device the first time, all other times the lock will be held
as a read. Once the backing device has been set it cannot be set again
(it would return -EEXIST). I think no matter what if we're doing
writeback, even with the optimization you're describing, you'd have to
hold the zram->init_lock as read to validate that you have a writeback
device. Does that make sense?
Brian
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 4:55 PM Minchan Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 02:40:52PM -0400, Brian Geffon wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 2:29 PM Minchan Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:16:27AM -0700, Brian Geffon wrote:
> > > > There does not appear to be a technical reason to not
> > > > allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the
> > > > zram device is initialized.
> > > >
> > > > This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned
> > > > as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that
> > > > event backing_dev would return -EEXIST.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 6 +++---
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > index fcaf2750f68f..12b4555ee079 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > @@ -462,9 +462,9 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev,
> > > > return -ENOMEM;
> > > >
> > > > down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > > > - if (init_done(zram)) {
> > > > - pr_info("Can't setup backing device for initialized device\n");
> > > > - err = -EBUSY;
> > > > + if (zram->backing_dev) {
> > > > + pr_info("Backing device is already assigned\n");
> > > > + err = -EEXIST;
> > > > goto out;
> > >
> > > Hi Brian,
> > >
> >
> > Hi Minchan,
> >
> > > I am worry about the inconsistency with other interface of current zram
> > > set up. They were supposed to set it up before zram disksize setting
> > > because it makes code more simple/maintainalbe in that we don't need
> > > to check some feature on the fly.
> > >
> > > Let's think about when zram extends the writeback of incompressible
> > > page on demand. The write path will need the backing_dev under
> > > down_read(&zarm->init_lock) or other conditional variable to check
> > > whether the feature is enabled or not on the fly.
> >
> > I don't follow what you mean by that, writeback_store already holds
> > down_read(&zarm->init_lock).
>
> I should have explained a bit more. Sorry about that.
> I am thinking about a feature to deal with incompressible page.
> Let's have an example to handle incompressible page for that.
>
> zram_bvec_rw
> zram_bvec_write
> if (comp_len >= huge_class)
> zs_page_writeback
> down_read(&zram->init_lock) or some other way
>
> It's just idea for incompressible page but we might intorduce
> the way for other compresible pages, too at some condition.
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 4:55 PM Minchan Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 02:40:52PM -0400, Brian Geffon wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 2:29 PM Minchan Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:16:27AM -0700, Brian Geffon wrote:
> > > > > There does not appear to be a technical reason to not
> > > > > allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the
> > > > > zram device is initialized.
> > > > >
> > > > > This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned
> > > > > as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that
> > > > > event backing_dev would return -EEXIST.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <[email protected]>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 6 +++---
> > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > index fcaf2750f68f..12b4555ee079 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > @@ -462,9 +462,9 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev,
> > > > > return -ENOMEM;
> > > > >
> > > > > down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > > > > - if (init_done(zram)) {
> > > > > - pr_info("Can't setup backing device for initialized device\n");
> > > > > - err = -EBUSY;
> > > > > + if (zram->backing_dev) {
> > > > > + pr_info("Backing device is already assigned\n");
> > > > > + err = -EEXIST;
> > > > > goto out;
> > > >
> > > > Hi Brian,
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Minchan,
> > >
> > > > I am worry about the inconsistency with other interface of current zram
> > > > set up. They were supposed to set it up before zram disksize setting
> > > > because it makes code more simple/maintainalbe in that we don't need
> > > > to check some feature on the fly.
> > > >
> > > > Let's think about when zram extends the writeback of incompressible
> > > > page on demand. The write path will need the backing_dev under
> > > > down_read(&zarm->init_lock) or other conditional variable to check
> > > > whether the feature is enabled or not on the fly.
> > >
> > > I don't follow what you mean by that, writeback_store already holds
> > > down_read(&zarm->init_lock).
> >
> > I should have explained a bit more. Sorry about that.
> > I am thinking about a feature to deal with incompressible page.
> > Let's have an example to handle incompressible page for that.
> >
> > zram_bvec_rw
> > zram_bvec_write
> > if (comp_len >= huge_class)
> > zs_page_writeback
> > down_read(&zram->init_lock) or some other way
> >
> > It's just idea for incompressible page but we might intorduce
> > the way for other compresible pages, too at some condition.
(sorry for the top post before)
Hi Minchan,
I guess the point I was trying to make was that so long as we allow a
reset operation we'll need to be taking the init lock in read mode
before doing any writeback. Does that seem right?
Brian
On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 11:18:38AM -0400, Brian Geffon wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 4:55 PM Minchan Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 02:40:52PM -0400, Brian Geffon wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 2:29 PM Minchan Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:16:27AM -0700, Brian Geffon wrote:
> > > > > > There does not appear to be a technical reason to not
> > > > > > allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the
> > > > > > zram device is initialized.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned
> > > > > > as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that
> > > > > > event backing_dev would return -EEXIST.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <[email protected]>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 6 +++---
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > > index fcaf2750f68f..12b4555ee079 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > > @@ -462,9 +462,9 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev,
> > > > > > return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > > > > > - if (init_done(zram)) {
> > > > > > - pr_info("Can't setup backing device for initialized device\n");
> > > > > > - err = -EBUSY;
> > > > > > + if (zram->backing_dev) {
> > > > > > + pr_info("Backing device is already assigned\n");
> > > > > > + err = -EEXIST;
> > > > > > goto out;
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Brian,
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Minchan,
> > > >
> > > > > I am worry about the inconsistency with other interface of current zram
> > > > > set up. They were supposed to set it up before zram disksize setting
> > > > > because it makes code more simple/maintainalbe in that we don't need
> > > > > to check some feature on the fly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's think about when zram extends the writeback of incompressible
> > > > > page on demand. The write path will need the backing_dev under
> > > > > down_read(&zarm->init_lock) or other conditional variable to check
> > > > > whether the feature is enabled or not on the fly.
> > > >
> > > > I don't follow what you mean by that, writeback_store already holds
> > > > down_read(&zarm->init_lock).
> > >
> > > I should have explained a bit more. Sorry about that.
> > > I am thinking about a feature to deal with incompressible page.
> > > Let's have an example to handle incompressible page for that.
> > >
> > > zram_bvec_rw
> > > zram_bvec_write
> > > if (comp_len >= huge_class)
> > > zs_page_writeback
> > > down_read(&zram->init_lock) or some other way
> > >
> > > It's just idea for incompressible page but we might intorduce
> > > the way for other compresible pages, too at some condition.
>
> (sorry for the top post before)
>
> Hi Minchan,
> I guess the point I was trying to make was that so long as we allow a
> reset operation we'll need to be taking the init lock in read mode
> before doing any writeback. Does that seem right?
It's true and it introduced many lock dependency problems before.
We actually had the lock in the rw path but we removed the lock
so without strong reason, I'd like to avoid the lock in the rw path.
commit 08eee69fcf6b
Author: Minchan Kim <[email protected]>
Date: Thu Feb 12 15:00:45 2015 -0800
zram: remove init_lock in zram_make_request
Admin could reset zram during I/O operation going on so we have used
zram->init_lock as read-side lock in I/O path to prevent sudden zram
meta freeing.
However, the init_lock is really troublesome. We can't do call
zram_meta_alloc under init_lock due to lockdep splat because
zram_rw_page is one of the function under reclaim path and hold it as
read_lock while other places in process context hold it as write_lock.
So, we have used allocation out of the lock to avoid lockdep warn but
it's not good for readability and fainally, I met another lockdep splat
between init_lock and cpu_hotplug from kmem_cache_destroy during working
zsmalloc compaction. :(
Yes, the ideal is to remove horrible init_lock of zram in rw path. This
patch removes it in rw path and instead, add atomic refcount for meta
lifetime management and completion to free meta in process context.
It's important to free meta in process context because some of resource
destruction needs mutex lock, which could be held if we releases the
resource in reclaim context so it's deadlock, again.
As a bonus, we could remove init_done check in rw path because
zram_meta_get will do a role for it, instead.
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 12:37 PM Minchan Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 11:18:38AM -0400, Brian Geffon wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 4:55 PM Minchan Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 02:40:52PM -0400, Brian Geffon wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 2:29 PM Minchan Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:16:27AM -0700, Brian Geffon wrote:
> > > > > > > There does not appear to be a technical reason to not
> > > > > > > allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the
> > > > > > > zram device is initialized.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned
> > > > > > > as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that
> > > > > > > event backing_dev would return -EEXIST.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 6 +++---
> > > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > > > index fcaf2750f68f..12b4555ee079 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > > > > > > @@ -462,9 +462,9 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev,
> > > > > > > return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> > > > > > > - if (init_done(zram)) {
> > > > > > > - pr_info("Can't setup backing device for initialized device\n");
> > > > > > > - err = -EBUSY;
> > > > > > > + if (zram->backing_dev) {
> > > > > > > + pr_info("Backing device is already assigned\n");
> > > > > > > + err = -EEXIST;
> > > > > > > goto out;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Brian,
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Minchan,
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am worry about the inconsistency with other interface of current zram
> > > > > > set up. They were supposed to set it up before zram disksize setting
> > > > > > because it makes code more simple/maintainalbe in that we don't need
> > > > > > to check some feature on the fly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's think about when zram extends the writeback of incompressible
> > > > > > page on demand. The write path will need the backing_dev under
> > > > > > down_read(&zarm->init_lock) or other conditional variable to check
> > > > > > whether the feature is enabled or not on the fly.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't follow what you mean by that, writeback_store already holds
> > > > > down_read(&zarm->init_lock).
> > > >
> > > > I should have explained a bit more. Sorry about that.
> > > > I am thinking about a feature to deal with incompressible page.
> > > > Let's have an example to handle incompressible page for that.
> > > >
> > > > zram_bvec_rw
> > > > zram_bvec_write
> > > > if (comp_len >= huge_class)
> > > > zs_page_writeback
> > > > down_read(&zram->init_lock) or some other way
> > > >
> > > > It's just idea for incompressible page but we might intorduce
> > > > the way for other compresible pages, too at some condition.
> >
> > (sorry for the top post before)
> >
> > Hi Minchan,
> > I guess the point I was trying to make was that so long as we allow a
> > reset operation we'll need to be taking the init lock in read mode
> > before doing any writeback. Does that seem right?
>
> It's true and it introduced many lock dependency problems before.
> We actually had the lock in the rw path but we removed the lock
> so without strong reason, I'd like to avoid the lock in the rw path.
Hi Minchan,
Thank you very much for taking the time to explain! We can drop this patch.
Brian
>
> commit 08eee69fcf6b
> Author: Minchan Kim <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu Feb 12 15:00:45 2015 -0800
>
> zram: remove init_lock in zram_make_request
>
> Admin could reset zram during I/O operation going on so we have used
> zram->init_lock as read-side lock in I/O path to prevent sudden zram
> meta freeing.
>
> However, the init_lock is really troublesome. We can't do call
> zram_meta_alloc under init_lock due to lockdep splat because
> zram_rw_page is one of the function under reclaim path and hold it as
> read_lock while other places in process context hold it as write_lock.
> So, we have used allocation out of the lock to avoid lockdep warn but
> it's not good for readability and fainally, I met another lockdep splat
> between init_lock and cpu_hotplug from kmem_cache_destroy during working
> zsmalloc compaction. :(
>
> Yes, the ideal is to remove horrible init_lock of zram in rw path. This
> patch removes it in rw path and instead, add atomic refcount for meta
> lifetime management and completion to free meta in process context.
> It's important to free meta in process context because some of resource
> destruction needs mutex lock, which could be held if we releases the
> resource in reclaim context so it's deadlock, again.
>
> As a bonus, we could remove init_done check in rw path because
> zram_meta_get will do a role for it, instead.