Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-38133-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240120024007.2850671-1-yosryahmed@google.com>
 <20240120024007.2850671-3-yosryahmed@google.com> <20240122201906.GA1567330@cmpxchg.org>
 <CAJD7tkaATS48HVuBfbOmPM3EvRUoPFr66WhF64UC4FkyVH5exg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240123153851.GA1745986@cmpxchg.org> <CAJD7tkasHsRnT_75-TXsEe58V9_OW6m3g6CF7Kmsvz8CKRG_EA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240123201234.GC1745986@cmpxchg.org> <CAJD7tkZC6w2EaE=j2NEVWn1s7Lo2A7YZh8LiZ+w72jQzFFWLUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <f3fa799f-1815-4cfe-abc8-3ba929fcd1ba@bytedance.com> <CAJD7tka6UuEuuP=df-1V3vwsi0T0QhLORTRDs6qDvA81iY6SGA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJD7tka6UuEuuP=df-1V3vwsi0T0QhLORTRDs6qDvA81iY6SGA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 00:03:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkZEJ1hzSoQ-8yG5-TYJBKUXCBNAW8Kdh=FSG3W0f_Dc4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: zswap: remove unnecessary tree cleanups in zswap_swapoff()
To: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, 
	Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>, Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>, Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>, 
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 11:53=E2=80=AFPM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com=
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I also thought about this problem for some time, maybe something like b=
elow
> > can be changed to fix it? It's likely I missed something, just some tho=
ughts.
> >
> > IMHO, the problem is caused by the different way in which we use zswap =
entry
> > in the writeback, that should be much like zswap_load().
> >
> > The zswap_load() comes in with the folio locked in swap cache, so it ha=
s
> > stable zswap tree to search and lock... But in writeback case, we don't=
,
> > shrink_memcg_cb() comes in with only a zswap entry with lru list lock h=
eld,
> > then release lru lock to get tree lock, which maybe freed already.
> >
> > So we should change here, we read swpentry from entry with lru list loc=
k held,
> > then release lru lock, to try to lock corresponding folio in swap cache=
,
> > if we success, the following things is much the same like zswap_load().
> > We can get tree lock, to recheck the invalidate race, if no race happen=
ed,
> > we can make sure the entry is still right and get refcount of it, then
> > release the tree lock.
>
> Hmm I think you may be onto something here. Moving the swap cache
> allocation ahead before referencing the tree should give us the same
> guarantees as zswap_load() indeed. We can also consolidate the
> invalidate race checks (right now we have one in shrink_memcg_cb() and
> another one inside zswap_writeback_entry()).
>
> We will have to be careful about the error handling path to make sure
> we delete the folio from the swap cache only after we know the tree
> won't be referenced anymore. Anyway, I think this can work.
>
> On a separate note, I think there is a bug in zswap_writeback_entry()
> when we delete a folio from the swap cache. I think we are missing a
> folio_unlock() there.
>
> >
> > The main differences between this writeback with zswap_load() is the ha=
ndling
> > of lru entry and the tree lifetime. The whole zswap_load() function has=
 the
> > stable reference of zswap tree, but it's not for shrink_memcg_cb() bott=
om half
> > after __swap_writepage() since we unlock the folio after that. So we ca=
n't
> > reference the tree after that.
> >
> > This problem is easy to fix, we can zswap_invalidate_entry(tree, entry)=
 early
> > in tree lock, since thereafter writeback can't fail. BTW, I think we sh=
ould
> > also zswap_invalidate_entry() early in zswap_load() and only support th=
e
> > zswap_exclusive_loads_enabled mode, but that's another topic.
>
> zswap_invalidate_entry() actually doesn't seem to be using the tree at al=
l.

Never mind, I was looking at zswap_entry_put().