Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 16:19:13 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        minchan@kernel.org, ngupta@vflare.org, sjenning@redhat.com,
        ddstreet@ieee.org, vitaly.wool@konsulko.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] zsmalloc: Implement writeback mechanism for
 zsmalloc
Message-ID: <Y3x38acHBZkWQbL7@google.com>
References: <20221119001536.2086599-1-nphamcs@gmail.com>
 <20221119001536.2086599-7-nphamcs@gmail.com>
 <Y3wwuMSy8YC86QAi@google.com>
 <Y3w+C8ClzP6VbqrA@cmpxchg.org>
 <Y3xFHIgkiZNYCbHi@google.com>
 <Y3xnf7pR4vI7o9PV@cmpxchg.org>
 <Y3xtpoQpb8DuiTlh@google.com>
 <Y3x109XxGY02Y7Vp@cmpxchg.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y3x109XxGY02Y7Vp@cmpxchg.org>
Precedence: bulk

On (22/11/22 02:10), Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > Yes. "What if it would continue". Would it make sense to not
> > break on EAGAIN?
> > 
> > 	while (total < pages) {
> > 		ret = zs_reclaim_page(pool);
> > 		if (ret == -EAGAIN)
> > 			continue;
> > 		if (ret < 0)
> > 			break;
> > 		total++;
> > 	}
> > 
> > Then we don't need retry loop in zs_reclaim_page().
> 
> But that's an indefinite busy-loop?

That would mean that all lru pages constantly have locked objects
and we can only make partial progress.

> I don't see what the problem with limited retrying in
> zs_reclaim_page() is. It's robust and has worked for years.

No problem with it, just asking.