Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-120017-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240325235018.2028408-1-yosryahmed@google.com> <20240325235018.2028408-2-yosryahmed@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240325235018.2028408-2-yosryahmed@google.com>
From: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:49:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKEwX=PXUCnubYJEzF0wKU3B1aVGm3oS4EFmtMXUj4LsPyLK8A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/9] mm: zswap: always shrink in zswap_store() if zswap_pool_reached_full
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, 
	Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 4:50=E2=80=AFPM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>=
 wrote:
>
> The cleanup code in zswap_store() is not pretty, particularly the
> 'shrink' label at the bottom that ends up jumping between cleanup
> labels.
>
> Instead of having a dedicated label to shrink the pool, just use
> zswap_pool_reached_full directly to figure out if the pool needs
> shrinking. zswap_pool_reached_full should be true if and only if the
> pool needs shrinking.
>
> The only caveat is that the value of zswap_pool_reached_full may be
> changed by concurrent zswap_store() calls between checking the limit and
> testing zswap_pool_reached_full in the cleanup code. This is fine
> because:
> - If zswap_pool_reached_full was true during limit checking then became
>   false during the cleanup code, then someone else already took care of
>   shrinking the pool and there is no need to queue the worker. That
>   would be a good change.

Yup.

> - If zswap_pool_reached_full was false during limit checking then became
>   true during the cleanup code, then someone else hit the limit
>   meanwhile. In this case, both threads will try to queue the worker,
>   but it never gets queued more than once anyway. Also, calling
>   queue_work() multiple times when the limit is hit could already happen
>   today, so this isn't a significant change in any way.

Agree.

>
> Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>

This change by itself seems fine to me.
Reviewed-by: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>