Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-29593-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: <20240117-b4-zswap-lock-optimize-v1-0-23f6effe5775@bytedance.com>
 <CAJD7tkY7Xvjg37EEw2M=uRknphY0pf3ZVpyX2s2QyiJ=Axhihw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF8kJuP4o3Ebg-aYKF9=ftbdu97RnkXnYL-8RuVjYAeXd+ng3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJD7tkYfo6mNjHQJt4yfVuh55tMyVMRnbeq5ki42tYHBEgP_eA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF8kJuO=3-DMV-rXBZE-hVUXzQcV5B1HPFGzpzL99_5WggqF9Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF8kJuO=3-DMV-rXBZE-hVUXzQcV5B1HPFGzpzL99_5WggqF9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 16:34:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkadpOmERPzUyYUX=8=POan=Pm1zSae81zyRhYLXDHo_7g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm/zswap: optimize the scalability of zswap rb-tree
To: Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>
Cc: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 4:18=E2=80=AFPM Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Yosry,
>
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 3:48=E2=80=AFPM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.co=
m> wrote:
> >
> > > Currently the xarray patch should have everything it takes to use RCU
> > > read lock. However taking out the tree spinlock is more work than
> > > previously. If we are going to remove the tree spinlock, I think we
> > > should revert back to doing a zswap tree lookup and return the zswap
> > > entry with reference increased. The tree mapping can still decouple
> > > from the zswap entry reference count drop to zero.  Anyway, my V1 of
> > > the xarray patch will not include removing the tree spinlock.
> >
> > Interesting. What do you mean by removing the tree spinlock? My
> > assumption was that the xarray reduces lock contention because we do
> > not need a lock to do lookups, but we still need the lock otherwise.
> > Did you have something in mind to completely remove the tree lock?
>
> In my current xarray series, it adds the xarray alongside the rb tree.
> Xarray has its own internal lock as well. Effectively zswap now has
> two locks instead of just one previously.  The xarray lock will not
> have any contention due to the xarray lock taken inside the zswap rb
> tree lock. The eventual goal is reducing the two locks back to
> one(xarray lock), which is not in my V1 patch. Your understanding is
> correct, the xarray still needs to have one lock for protecting the
> write path.

Hmm I don't understand. What's the point of keeping the rbtree if we
have the xarray? Doesn't it end up being more expensive and bug-prone
to maintain both trees?

When you say "eventual goal", do you mean what the patch would morph
into in later versions (as in v1 is just a proof of concept without
removing the rbtree), or follow up patches?