Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.33 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.33;
Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2023 10:18:54 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        cerasuolodomenico@gmail.com, yosryahmed@google.com,
        sjenning@redhat.com, ddstreet@ieee.org, vitaly.wool@konsulko.com,
        roman.gushchin@linux.dev, shakeelb@google.com,
        muchun.song@linux.dev, chrisl@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        kernel-team@meta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/6] memcontrol: allows mem_cgroup_iter() to check for
 onlineness
Message-ID: <ZWcB_r8ywytCFR8B@tiehlicka>
References: <20231127193703.1980089-1-nphamcs@gmail.com>
 <20231127193703.1980089-3-nphamcs@gmail.com>
 <ZWW1IG0Mv3r0m4mp@tiehlicka>
 <CAKEwX=OGtkqWys9VM9EBScoCdAjSdfPjEkvoY7_u9udDZBFFpw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAKEwX=OGtkqWys9VM9EBScoCdAjSdfPjEkvoY7_u9udDZBFFpw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue 28-11-23 08:53:56, Nhat Pham wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 1:38 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 27-11-23 11:36:59, Nhat Pham wrote:
> > > The new zswap writeback scheme requires an online-only memcg hierarchy
> > > traversal. Add a new parameter to mem_cgroup_iter() to check for
> > > onlineness before returning.
> >
> > Why is this needed?
> 
> For context, in patch 3 of this series, Domenico and I are adding
> cgroup-aware LRU to zswap, so that we can perform workload-specific
> zswap writeback. When the reclaim happens due to the global zswap
> limit being hit, a cgroup is selected by the mem_cgroup_iter(), and
> the last one selected is saved in the zswap pool (so that the
> iteration can follow from there next time the limit is hit).
> 
> However, one problem with this scheme is we will be pinning the
> reference to that saved memcg until the next global reclaim attempt,
> which could prevent it from being killed for quite some time after it
> has been offlined. Johannes, Yosry, and I discussed a couple of
> approaches for a while, and decided to add a callback that would
> release the reference held by the zswap pool when the memcg is
> offlined, and the zswap pool will obtain the reference to the next
> online memcg in the traversal (or at least one that has not had the
> zswap-memcg-release-callback run on it yet).

This should be a part of the changelog along with an explanation why
this cannot be handled on the caller level? You have a pin on the memcg,
you can check it is online and scratch it if not, right? Why do we need
to make a rather convoluted iterator interface more complex when most
users simply do not require that?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs