Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-29363-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
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>
 <CAJD7tkb2oda=4f0s8w8xn+t_TM1b2Q_otbb86VPQ9R1m2uqDTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACSyD1ODCikYLDzO4LkQeDzB4sqDWCULwCdehw9inP-qyw3_Jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJD7tkY=zmGiPoWNjVaVeU+NPxV2t48J5-CxEP9=nBK8nAh0XA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKEwX=Na3dg+KZwvtQi-Nj79Am-1tttDw50_qStkobmYGUC6NA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACSyD1Pp8gkxwTXZuinm6wiZs0e5U2B5oND4rj29dzmRApFjhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKEwX=OsTQCJd12S3NajRMRy_s3q3yGFpS7S=_3-yOYK6+ezzA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACSyD1NgqoFKuHSgdw_bzgK_StsLrNQ+7wHVBqsnHcB-2rD2ow@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACSyD1Np1JbKB9punaigGbJ7y2ZWou1Sr7bczanHv4-1UQZ==A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJD7tkbfe5duVhN7kJhkQZLCbK48giVZ8LBx=RQDmp80oa2FDA@mail.gmail.com> <CACSyD1PERLG_68OXwzuGH-cqOuS1k8N_fE5Xu-KACZ34UYephw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACSyD1PERLG_68OXwzuGH-cqOuS1k8N_fE5Xu-KACZ34UYephw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 11:29:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKEwX=Ok1SE6X=_mt3fGjUTt5qKvRm329zOPiMg6WRTZsuHRgg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] mm: zswap: fix the lack of page lru flag
 in zswap_writeback_entry
To: Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com>
Cc: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, 
	sjenning@redhat.com, ddstreet@ieee.org, vitaly.wool@konsulko.com, 
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 1:52=E2=80=AFAM Zhongkun He
<hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Please forgive me for adding additional information about this patch.
> > >
> > > I have finished the opt for introducing a folio_add_lru_tail(), but
> > > there are many
> > > questions:
> > > 1) A new page can be move to LRU only by lru_add_fn, so
> > >     folio_add_lru_tail could not add pages to LRU for the following c=
ode
> > >     in folio_batch_move_lru(),which is added by Alex Shi for
> > >     serializing memcg changes in pagevec_lru_move_fn[1].
> > >
> > > /* block memcg migration while the folio moves between lru */
> > >         if (move_fn !=3D lru_add_fn && !folio_test_clear_lru(folio))
> > >             continue;
> > > To achieve the goal, we need to add a new function like  lru_add_fn
> > > which does not have the lru flag and folio_add_lru_tail()
> > > +               if (move_fn !=3D lru_add_fn && move_fn !=3D lru_move_=
tail_fn_new &&
> > > +                       !folio_test_clear_lru(folio))

Hmm yeah, I guess it is a bit more plumbing to do. I prefer this
though - not very fond of hacking current's flag just for a small
optimization :) And I'd argue this is the "right" thing to do -
draining the other LRU operation batches just so that we can
successfully perform an add-to-tail seems hacky and wrong to me.

> > >
> > > 2)  __read_swap_cache_async has six parameters, so there is no space =
to
> > > add a new one, add_to_lru_head.

Matthew's solution seems fine to me, no? i.e using a single flag
parameter to encapsulate all boolean arguments.

> > >
> > > So it seems a bit hacky just for a special case for the reasons above=
.
> >
> > It's a lot of plumbing for sure. Adding a flag to current task_struct
> > is a less-noisy yet-still-hacky solution. I am not saying we should do
> > it, but it's an option. I am not sure how much task flags we have to
> > spare.
>
> Got it.
> >
> > >
> > > Back to the beginning,  lru_add_drain() is the simplest option=EF=BC=
=8Cwhich is common
> > > below the __read_swap_cache_async(). Please see the function
> > > swap_cluster_readahead()
> > > and swap_vma_readahead(), of course it has been batched.
> > >
> > > Or we should  leave this problem alone=EF=BC=8Cbefore we can write ba=
ck zswap
> > > in batches.
> >
> > Calling lru_add_drain() for every written back page is an overkill
> > imo. If we have writeback batching at some point, it may make more
> > sense then.
>
> Agree.

Agree. lru_add_drain() does quite a bit, and doing it for every
written page makes batching less effective. And as argued above, I
don't think we should do this.

I'm fine with waiting til writeback batching too :) But that will be a
bigger task.


>
> >
> > Adding Michal Hocko was recently complaining [1] about lru_add_drain()
> > being called unnecessarily elsewhere.
>
> Got it, thanks.
> >
> > [1]https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/ZaD9BNtXZfY2UtVI@tiehlicka/