Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-30391-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKEwX=NLe-N6dLvOVErPSL3Vfw6wqHgcUBQoNRLeWkN6chdvLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240116133145.12454-1-debug.penguin32@gmail.com> <CAKEwX=PjraCg_NjP4Tnkbv8uqnVw8yJGh-mbuZC02Gp6HMcDBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJD7tkb_uC_K7+C3GjVqg1rDRCmUkbHcEw950CkUHG66yokbcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240118161601.GJ939255@cmpxchg.org> <20240118164839.GK939255@cmpxchg.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240118164839.GK939255@cmpxchg.org>
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 09:03:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkZRMK2F09jgnjqPkoJtbFJ=Dj=QBtZbqXREKp4WE=_wyg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/zswap: Improve with alloc_workqueue() call
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>, Ronald Monthero <debug.penguin32@gmail.com>, sjenning@redhat.com, 
	ddstreet@ieee.org, vitaly.wool@konsulko.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, 
	chrisl@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 8:48=E2=80=AFAM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org=
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 11:16:08AM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 5:32=E2=80=AFAM Ronald Monthero
> > > > > @@ -1620,7 +1620,8 @@ static int zswap_setup(void)
> > > > >                 zswap_enabled =3D false;
> > > > >         }
> > > > >
> > > > > -       shrink_wq =3D create_workqueue("zswap-shrink");
> > > > > +       shrink_wq =3D alloc_workqueue("zswap-shrink",
> > > > > +                       WQ_UNBOUND|WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 1);
>
> > What could make a difference though is the increased concurrency by
> > switching max_active from 1 to 0. This could cause a higher rate of
> > shrinker runs, which might increase lock contention and reclaim
> > volume. That part would be good to double check with the shrinker
> > benchmarks.
>
> Nevermind, I clearly can't read.

Regardless of max_active, we only have one shrink_work per zswap pool,
and we can only have one instance of the work running at any time,
right?

>
> Could still be worthwhile testing with the default 0, but it's not a
> concern in the patch as-is.
>
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
>