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, 9 May 2023 12:00:30 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To:     Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ngupta@vflare.org,
        sjenning@redhat.com, ddstreet@ieee.org, vitaly.wool@konsulko.com,
        kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: move LRU update from zs_map_object() to
 zs_malloc()
Message-ID: <20230509030030.GD11511@google.com>
References: <20230505185054.2417128-1-nphamcs@gmail.com>
 <20230506030140.GC3281499@google.com>
 <20230508140658.GA3421@cmpxchg.org>
 <CAKEwX=MtunOe6A--SG3ud-gUFg3bXFJgG4csgwHeZFAEqjCgHg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKEwX=MtunOe6A--SG3ud-gUFg3bXFJgG4csgwHeZFAEqjCgHg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On (23/05/08 09:00), Nhat Pham wrote:
> > The deeper bug here is that zs_map_object() tries to add the page to
> > the LRU list while the shrinker has it isolated for reclaim. This is
> > way too sutble and error prone. Even if it worked now, it'll cause
> > corruption issues down the line.
> >
> > For example, Nhat is adding a secondary entry point to reclaim.
> > Reclaim expects that a page that's on the LRU is also on the fullness
> > list, so this would lead to a double remove_zspage() and BUG_ON().
> >
> > This patch doesn't just fix the crash, it eliminates the deeper LRU
> > isolation issue and makes the code more robust and simple.
> 
> I agree. IMO, less unnecessary concurrent interaction is always a
> win for developers' and maintainers' cognitive load.

Thanks for all the explanations.

> As a side benefit - this also gets rid of the inelegant check
> (mm == ZS_MM_WO). The fact that we had to include a
> a multi-paragraph explanation for a 3-line piece of code
> should have been a red flag.

Minchan had some strong opinion on that, so we need to hear from him
before we decide how do we fix it.