Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231113130601.3350915-1-hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com>
 <CAJD7tkY8SwROmNEaBAhkS4OKj33g-6fHsKFeYKW3afT+yAbvxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACSyD1P6RwjWpKhvNWEo77LKpTrnKOzT-+TV+GnQu_g-ADYbcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJD7tkbkPZ-Fiyz_4CKNQmufCpWSF330xK3bc7aHNML_cPi2sA@mail.gmail.com> <CACSyD1Nav7+zppx3BZS8vU5uF3AaBin0XOKCdtdQ1d6sA4wu9w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACSyD1Nav7+zppx3BZS8vU5uF3AaBin0XOKCdtdQ1d6sA4wu9w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2023 20:09:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkZHwg_u7UhzugVmmH6-FNORb+D+5SyMX6cGefp93uZr_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] mm:zswap: fix zswap entry reclamation
 failure in two scenarios
To:     =?UTF-8?B?6LS65Lit5Z2k?= <hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, nphamcs@gmail.com,
        sjenning@redhat.com, ddstreet@ieee.org, vitaly.wool@konsulko.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 7:33=E2=80=AFPM =E8=B4=BA=E4=B8=AD=E5=9D=A4 <hezhon=
gkun.hzk@bytedance.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 4:13=E2=80=AFAM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.co=
m> wrote:
> >
> > I think we may need to try to lock the folio. Otherwise we may race
> > with reclaim reading the dirty bit before we set it.
> >
> > Taking a step back, this seems like we are going behind exclusive
> > loads. We "should" keep the page in zswap as exclusive loads are
> > disabled and the page is not yet invalidated from zswap (the swap
> > entry is still in use). What you are trying to do here is sneakily
> > drop the page from zswap as if we wrote it back, but we didn't.
>
> If  we want to reclaim the cached zswap_entry, Writing back might
> be the easy way.
>
> > We just know that it was already loaded from zswap. We are essentially
> > making the previous load exclusive retroactively.
> >
> > Is there a reason why exclusive loads cannot be enabled to achieve the
> > same result in the (arguably) correct way?
> >
>
> zswap_exclusive_loads is not enabled by default, so the shrink_worker
> may fail if there are many cached zswap_entries on the zswap_pool->lru.


It can be enabled at runtime, or enabled by default by using
CONFIG_ZSWAP_EXCLUSIVE_LOADS_DEFAULT_ON.

>
>
> Is it possible to make zswap_exclusive_loads the only way in zswap_load?
> It only makes sense when the page is read and no longer dirty.
> If the page is read frequently, it should stay in cache rather than zswap=
.
> The benefit of doing this is very small, two copies of the same page
> in memory.


The reason I added it behind runtime and config knobs is to preserve
the existing behavior in case someone depends on it. At Google, we
have been using exclusive loads for a long time. If other users of
zswap agree to make this the default behavior or make it the only way
to do zswap loads I don't have a problem with it.

>
>
> Thanks.