Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-49459-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Message-ID: <50ac8845-0a19-4b0f-b593-a37268d30be0@bytedance.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:18:21 +0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] mm/zswap: remove duplicate_entry debug value
Content-Language: en-US
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@kvack.org
References: <20240201-b4-zswap-invalidate-entry-v1-0-56ed496b6e55@bytedance.com>
 <20240201-b4-zswap-invalidate-entry-v1-4-56ed496b6e55@bytedance.com>
 <20240201175536.GD321148@cmpxchg.org>
From: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240201175536.GD321148@cmpxchg.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2024/2/2 01:55, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 03:49:04PM +0000, Chengming Zhou wrote:
>> cat /sys/kernel/debug/zswap/duplicate_entry
>> 2086447
>>
>> When testing, the duplicate_entry value is very high, but no warning
>> message in the kernel log. From the comment of duplicate_entry
>> "Duplicate store was encountered (rare)", it seems something goes wrong.
>>
>> Actually it's incremented in the beginning of zswap_store(), which found
>> its zswap entry has already on the tree. And this is a normal case,
>> since the folio could leave zswap entry on the tree after swapin,
>> later it's dirtied and swapout/zswap_store again, found its original
>> zswap entry. (Maybe we can reuse it instead of invalidating it?)
> 
> Probably not worth it, especially after the next patch.

You are right, not worth it.

> 
>> So duplicate_entry should be only incremented in the real bug case,
>> which already have "WARN_ON(1)", it looks redundant to count bug case,
>> so this patch just remove it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
> 
> Either way, I agree that the WARN_ON() is more useful to point out a
> bug than a counter.
> 
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>

Thanks!