Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-20294-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231024142706.195517-1-hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com>
 <CAKEwX=OiNB+pPhb-3Tf7O=F7psKE3EOpwmbPSeLSOyuHpj3i+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACSyD1P6HmH9tSvONnNxYv8P+am_hH2dK3UJQd9_+o6EWkPsXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKEwX=PC3C-PrWAH3XiYGyR4ujqBJQBBX6uRa2jXKCy9VMyRCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACSyD1O7t0+BXUujJ81RAdEys3MUnmpu0sRADLazoyvayx5DLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKEwX=P5AC+ubnunnZr5vMiC6fFU+E_E7jg_FZztWwZRYSxTWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACSyD1Nnc_w3epbt6+EMt7a-4pAzgW1hbE=G5Fy5Tc5R5+uxKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKEwX=NuXR9Ot1eRFsp9n-3Tq9yhjD9up+jyvXeOzQ4xK9kEPA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKEwX=Oj2dR6a4-DeccvcVdJ-J7b=83uCWQAf5u7U0sySudnkw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKEwX=Oj2dR6a4-DeccvcVdJ-J7b=83uCWQAf5u7U0sySudnkw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 10:43:14 +0800
Message-ID: <CACSyD1NCa4HYmZuXy+8FE9ihoKo1kDfF4O5dMTH+iZeCugNLTA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] mm: zswap: fix the lack of page lru flag
 in zswap_writeback_entry
To: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, yosryahmed@google.com, 
	sjenning@redhat.com, ddstreet@ieee.org, vitaly.wool@konsulko.com, 
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>, weijie.yang@samsung.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 6:00=E2=80=AFAM Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 1:29=E2=80=AFPM Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 6:10=E2=80=AFAM Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@byte=
dance.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > There is another option here, which is not to move the page to th=
e
> > > > > tail of the inactive
> > > > > list after end_writeback and delete the following code in
> > > > > zswap_writeback_entry(),
> > > > > which did not work properly. But the pages will not be released f=
irst.
> > > > >
> > > > > /* move it to the tail of the inactive list after end_writeback *=
/
> > > > > SetPageReclaim(page);
> >
> >
> > Ok, so I took a look at the patch that originally introduced this
> > piece of logic:
> >
> > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/b349acc76b7f65400b85abd09a5379=
ddd6fa5a97
> >
> > Looks like it's not for the sake of correctness, but only as a
> > best-effort optimization (reducing page scanning). If it doesn't bring
> > any benefit (i.e due to the newly allocated page still on the cpu
> > batch), then we can consider removing it. After all, if you're right
> > and it's not really doing anything here - why bother. Perhaps we can
> > replace this with some other mechanism to avoid it being scanned for
> > reclaim.
>
> For instance, we can grab the local lock, look for the folio in the
> add batch and take the folio off it, then add it to the rotate batch
> instead? Not sure if this is doable within folio_rotate_reclaimable(),
> or you'll have to manually perform this yourself (and remove the
> PG_reclaim flag set here so that folio_end_writeback() doesn't try to
> handle it).
>
> There is still some overhead with this, but at least we don't have to
> *drain everything* (which looks like what's lru_add_drain() ->
> lru_add_drain_cpu() is doing). The latter sounds expensive and
> unnecessary, whereas this is just one element addition and one element
> removal - and if IIUC the size of the per-cpu add batch is capped at
> 15, so lookup + removal (if possible) shouldn't be too expensive?
>
> Just throwing ideas out there :)

Thanks  for your  time=EF=BC=8CNhat.
I will try other ways to solve this problem.

>
> >
> > I would cc Weijie as well, as he is the original author of this.