Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231113130601.3350915-1-hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com>
 <CAJD7tkY8SwROmNEaBAhkS4OKj33g-6fHsKFeYKW3afT+yAbvxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF8kJuPonfuOtipdifXwBny2H7cy6m6BL8mWFVXzfb9JSdYq3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJD7tkYMiJiXTTgAN34TP8QTr-ViAuEFddYes=ac+1ErenjCZw@mail.gmail.com> <CAF8kJuOC30feLGs0bNHOxMjSZ3uqF1y7eUdJ4p-w-myP8c1cFg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF8kJuOC30feLGs0bNHOxMjSZ3uqF1y7eUdJ4p-w-myP8c1cFg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Nov 2023 12:45:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkahj=QkNj1PBfzGRcDyrpE-n5Dbav7VVOVsAFR4vtx9LA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm:zswap: fix zswap entry reclamation failure in two scenarios
To:     Chris Li <chriscli@google.com>
Cc:     Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>,
        Seth Jennings <sjenning@redhat.com>,
        Dan Streetman <ddstreet@ieee.org>,
        Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@konsulko.com>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <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 Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 12:30=E2=80=AFPM Chris Li <chriscli@google.com> wro=
te:
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 12:19=E2=80=AFPM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.c=
om> wrote:
> >
> > Not bypassing the swap slot cache, just make the callbacks to
> > invalidate the zswap entry, do memg uncharging, etc when the slot is
> > no longer used and is entering the swap slot cache (i.e. when
> > free_swap_slot() is called), instead of when draining the swap slot
> > cache (i.e. when swap_range_free() is called). For all parts of MM
> > outside of swap, the swap entry is freed when free_swap_slot() is
> > called. We don't free it immediately because of caching, but this
> > should be transparent to other parts of MM (e.g. zswap, memcg, etc).
>
> That will cancel the batching effect on the swap slot free, making the
> common case for  swapping  faults take longer to complete, righ?
> If I recall correctly, the uncharge is the expensive part of the swap
> slot free operation.
> I just want to figure out what we are trading off against. This is not
> one side wins all situations.

Interesting. Maybe we can just move the zswap_invalidate() call to
save memory early, and leave the memcg uncharge call to be batched?
IIUC we already do some version of this internally at Google.

>
>
> Chris