Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-212509-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240608155316.451600-1-flintglass@gmail.com> <20240608155316.451600-2-flintglass@gmail.com>
 <CAKEwX=P1Ojb71AEJ2gzQTrfWidFPcJZmoNxEwji7TceBN-szCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpoddeigM44jhTA8Ua=+J4MC1MikouBZVoPrCW2LZF+9r5YeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJD7tkYp3GbuXV9G5bAZ1DetMmepV5ynciA+ukae7CKuxpXDJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpoddfj1EdfXfTUT8bLaNxat0hYiE4X9=qG38gPgRgmmVOjcw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJD7tkZTSGz1bpo-pMNP_=11O-7RrhubWonqhUJwrt+TB=Ougg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPpoddcp9rVvg77WapsuiMdMzFrV0UioJ+VbQuJbKNY7-=nvVw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPpoddcp9rVvg77WapsuiMdMzFrV0UioJ+VbQuJbKNY7-=nvVw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 19:57:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkY0=0yKSmEz=E5dL7GLRsO8r6ESWyzF+HdgK0wnMpzLKg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] mm: zswap: fix global shrinker memcg iteration
To: Takero Funaki <flintglass@gmail.com>
Cc: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, 
	Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, 
	Domenico Cerasuolo <cerasuolodomenico@gmail.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 7:36=E2=80=AFPM Takero Funaki <flintglass@gmail.com=
> wrote:
>
> 2024=E5=B9=B46=E6=9C=8813=E6=97=A5(=E6=9C=A8) 11:18 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahm=
ed@google.com>:
>
> > > The corrected version of the cleaner should be:
> > > ```c
> > > void zswap_memcg_offline_cleanup(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > > {
> > >         /* lock out zswap shrinker walking memcg tree */
> > >         spin_lock(&zswap_shrink_lock);
> > >         if (zswap_next_shrink =3D=3D memcg) {
> > >                 do {
> > >                         zswap_next_shrink =3D mem_cgroup_iter(NULL,
> > >                                         zswap_next_shrink, NULL);
> > >                         spin_unlock(&zswap_shrink_lock);
> > >                         spin_lock(&zswap_shrink_lock);
> > >                         if (!zswap_next_shrink)
> > >                                 break;
> > >                 } while (!mem_cgroup_online(zswap_next_shrink));
> > >         }
> > >         spin_unlock(&zswap_shrink_lock);
> > > }
> > > ```
> >
> > Is the idea here to avoid moving the iterator to another offline memcg
> > that zswap_memcg_offline_cleanup() was already called for, to avoid
> > holding a ref on that memcg until the next run of zswap shrinking?
> >
> > If yes, I think it's probably worth doing. But why do we need to
> > release and reacquire the lock in the loop above?
>
> Yes, the existing cleaner might leave the offline, already-cleaned memcg.
>
> The reacquiring lock is to not loop inside the critical section.
> In shrink_worker of v0 patch, the loop was restarted on offline memcg
> without releasing the lock. Nhat pointed out that we should drop the
> lock after every mem_cgroup_iter() call. v1 was changed to reacquire
> once per iteration like the cleaner code above.

I am not sure how often we'll run into a situation where we'll be
holding the lock for too long tbh. It should be unlikely to keep
encountering offline memcgs for a long time.

Nhat, do you think this could cause a problem in practice?