Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-109298-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: <20240319-zswap-xarray-v7-1-e9a03a049e86@kernel.org>
 <Zfp-iWaDfqeCOElt@google.com> <CANeU7Q=yxf0dnerTOZfe_ioeCbjnZd2Fpb-szvW7-Q1BzCUpOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZfqPK7AVunq2SC1l@google.com> <20240320100803.GB294822@cmpxchg.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240320100803.GB294822@cmpxchg.org>
From: Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:34:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CANeU7Q=w-vgx3wD9xR6_A-cCe+FFOKfbaoKdYUccOG4B1ir1oA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] zswap: replace RB tree with xarray
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>, "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>, 
	Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>, Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 3:08=E2=80=AFAM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org=
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 07:24:27AM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > [..]
> > > > > -     /* map */
> > > > > -     spin_lock(&tree->lock);
> > > > >       /*
> > > > > -      * The folio may have been dirtied again, invalidate the
> > > > > -      * possibly stale entry before inserting the new entry.
> > > > > +      * We finish initializing the entry while it's already in x=
array.
> > > > > +      * This is safe because:
> > > > > +      *
> > > > > +      * 1. Concurrent stores and invalidations are excluded by f=
olio lock.
> > > > > +      *
> > > > > +      * 2. Writeback is excluded by the entry not being on the L=
RU yet.
> > > > > +      *    The publishing order matters to prevent writeback fro=
m seeing
> > > > > +      *    an incoherent entry.
> > > >
> > > > As I mentioned before, writeback is also protected by the folio loc=
k.
> > > > Concurrent writeback will find the folio in the swapcache and abort=
 The
> > > > fact that the entry is not on the LRU yet is just additional protec=
tion,
> > > > so I don't think the publishing order actually matters here. Right?
> > >
> > > Right. This comment is explaining why this publishing order does not
> > > matter. I think we are talking about the same thing here?
> >
> > The comment literally says "the publishing order matters.." :)
> >
> > I believe Johannes meant that we should only publish the entry to the
> > LRU once it is fully initialized, to prevent writeback from using a
> > partially initialized entry.
> >
> > What I am saying is that, even if we add a partially initialized entry
> > to the zswap LRU, writeback will skip it anyway because the folio is
> > locked in the swapcache.
> >
> > So basically I think the comment should say:
> >
> >       /*
> >        * We finish initializing the entry while it's already in the
> >        * xarray. This is safe because the folio is locked in the swap
> >        * cache, which should protect against concurrent stores,
> >        * invalidations, and writeback.
> >        */
> >
> > Johannes, what do you think?
>
> I don't think that's quite right.
>
> Writeback will bail on swapcache insert, yes, but it will access the
> entry before attempting it. If LRU publishing happened before setting
> entry->swpentry e.g., we'd have a problem, while your comment suggets
> it would be safe to rearrange the code like this.
>
> So LRU publishing order does matter.

Yes, I agree with Johannes on this one. The publish order does matter,
it is not always safe recording the publish order. I will keep the V7
comments here.

Chris