Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-29762-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240117-zswap-xarray-v1-0-6daa86c08fae@kernel.org>
 <CAJD7tkbQb5nAQdhHXELQsUWs8KhwnoOZ7C8Eu2o7tCYSKeY9Ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANeU7Q=mphnSfiZRwFhqFTy56d2ifa5Pz-aa1h3O1PXUo_cu=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJD7tkaTZz9-rtYab+pvf31dprjMLstnHeXk6HZ_0C-8Np=06A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJD7tkaTZz9-rtYab+pvf31dprjMLstnHeXk6HZ_0C-8Np=06A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 23:28:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CAF8kJuN0WQ_n0VWub+90rj68UYGoMNG32h8OxbvLgpDrKrB1Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] RFC: zswap tree use xarray instead of RB tree
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-mm@kvack.org, =?UTF-8?B?V2VpIFh177+8?= <weixugc@google.com>, 
	Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>, 
	Chun-Tse Shao <ctshao@google.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Suren_Baghdasaryan=EF=BF=BC?= <surenb@google.com>, 
	Brain Geffon <bgeffon@google.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, 
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>, Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>, 
	Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Kairui Song <kasong@tencent.com>, 
	Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com>, Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>, 
	Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>, "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>, 
	"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>, 
	Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:05=E2=80=AFPM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com=
> wrote:
>
> The name changes from Chris to Christopher are confusing :D
>
> >
> > I think it makes the review easier. The code adding and removing does
> > not have much overlap. Combining it to a single patch does not save
> > patch size. Having the assert check would be useful for some bisecting
> > to narrow down which step causing the problem. I am fine with squash
> > it to one patch as well.
>
> I think having two patches is unnecessarily noisy, and we add some
> debug code in this patch that we remove in the next patch anyway.
> Let's see what others think, but personally I prefer a single patch.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I expect to merge the zswap rb tree spin lock with the xarray
> > > > lock in the follow up changes.
> > >
> > > Shouldn't this simply be changing uses of tree->lock to use
> > > xa_{lock/unlock}? We also need to make sure we don't try to lock the
> > > tree when operating on the xarray if the caller is already holding th=
e
> > > lock, but this seems to be straightforward enough to be done as part
> > > of this patch or this series at least.
> > >
> > > Am I missing something?
> >
> > Currently the zswap entry refcount is protected by the zswap tree spin
> > lock as well. Can't remove the tree spin lock without changing the
> > refcount code. I think the zswap search entry should just return the
> > entry with refcount atomic increase, inside the RCU read() or xarray
> > lock. The previous zswap code does the find_and_get entry() which is
> > closer to what I want.
>
> I think this can be done in an RCU read section surrounding xa_load()

xa_load() already has RCU read lock inside. If you do that you might
just as well use some XAS API to work with the lock directly.

> and the refcount increment. Didn't look closely to check how much
> complexity this adds to manage refcounts with RCU, but I think there
> should be a lot of examples all around the kernel.

The complexity is not adding the refcount inside xa_load(). It is on
the zswap code that calls zswap_search() and zswap_{insert,erase}().
As far as I can tell, those codes need some tricky changes to go along
with the refcount change.

>
> IIUC, there are no performance benefits from this conversion until we
> remove the tree spinlock, right?

The original intent is helping the long tail case. RB tree has worse
long tails than xarray. I expect it will help the page fault long tail
even without removing the tree spinlock.

Chris