On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 8:53 AM Takero Funaki <flintglass@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This patch fixes an issue where the zswap global shrinker stopped
> iterating through the memcg tree.
>
> The problem was that `shrink_worker()` would stop iterating when a memcg
> was being offlined and restart from the tree root. Now, it properly
> handles the offlining memcg and continues shrinking with the next memcg.
>
> This patch also modified handing of the lock for offlined memcg cleaner
> to adapt the change in the iteration, and avoid negligibly rare skipping
> of a memcg from shrink iteration.
>
> Fixes: a65b0e7607cc ("zswap: make shrinking memcg-aware")
> Signed-off-by: Takero Funaki <flintglass@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/zswap.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c
> index 80c634acb8d5..d720a42069b6 100644
> --- a/mm/zswap.c
> +++ b/mm/zswap.c
> @@ -827,12 +827,27 @@ void zswap_folio_swapin(struct folio *folio)
> }
> }
>
> +/*
> + * This function should be called when a memcg is being offlined.
> + *
> + * Since the global shrinker shrink_worker() may hold a reference
> + * of the memcg, we must check and release the reference in
> + * zswap_next_shrink.
> + *
> + * shrink_worker() must handle the case where this function releases
> + * the reference of memcg being shrunk.
> + */
> 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 == memcg)
> - zswap_next_shrink = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, zswap_next_shrink, NULL);
> +
> + if (READ_ONCE(zswap_next_shrink) == memcg) {
> + /* put back reference and advance the cursor */
> + memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, memcg, NULL);
> + WRITE_ONCE(zswap_next_shrink, memcg);
> + }
> +
I am really finding it difficult to understand what the diff is trying
to do. We are holding a lock that protects zswap_next_shrink. We
always access it with the lock held. Why do we need all of this?
Adding READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() where they are not needed is just
confusing imo.
> spin_unlock(&zswap_shrink_lock);
> }
>
> @@ -1401,25 +1416,44 @@ static int shrink_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
>
> static void shrink_worker(struct work_struct *w)
> {
> - struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = NULL;
> + struct mem_cgroup *next_memcg;
> int ret, failures = 0;
> unsigned long thr;
>
> /* Reclaim down to the accept threshold */
> thr = zswap_accept_thr_pages();
>
> - /* global reclaim will select cgroup in a round-robin fashion. */
> + /* global reclaim will select cgroup in a round-robin fashion.
> + *
> + * We save iteration cursor memcg into zswap_next_shrink,
> + * which can be modified by the offline memcg cleaner
> + * zswap_memcg_offline_cleanup().
> + *
> + * Since the offline cleaner is called only once, we cannot abandone
> + * offline memcg reference in zswap_next_shrink.
> + * We can rely on the cleaner only if we get online memcg under lock.
> + * If we get offline memcg, we cannot determine the cleaner will be
> + * called later. We must put it before returning from this function.
> + */
> do {
> +iternext:
> spin_lock(&zswap_shrink_lock);
> - zswap_next_shrink = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, zswap_next_shrink, NULL);
> - memcg = zswap_next_shrink;
> + next_memcg = READ_ONCE(zswap_next_shrink);
> +
> + if (memcg != next_memcg) {
> + /*
> + * Ours was released by offlining.
> + * Use the saved memcg reference.
> + */
> + memcg = next_memcg;
'memcg' will always be NULL on the first iteration, so we will always
start by shrinking 'zswap_next_shrink' for a second time before moving
the iterator.
> + } else {
> + /* advance cursor */
> + memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, memcg, NULL);
> + WRITE_ONCE(zswap_next_shrink, memcg);
Again, I don't see what this is achieving. The first iteration will
always set 'memcg' to 'zswap_next_shrink', and then we will always
move the iterator forward. The only difference I see is that we shrink
'zswap_next_shrink' twice in a row now (last 'memcg' in prev call, and
first 'memcg' in this call).
> + }
>
> /*
> - * We need to retry if we have gone through a full round trip, or if we
> - * got an offline memcg (or else we risk undoing the effect of the
> - * zswap memcg offlining cleanup callback). This is not catastrophic
> - * per se, but it will keep the now offlined memcg hostage for a while.
> - *
> * Note that if we got an online memcg, we will keep the extra
> * reference in case the original reference obtained by mem_cgroup_iter
> * is dropped by the zswap memcg offlining callback, ensuring that the
> @@ -1434,16 +1468,25 @@ static void shrink_worker(struct work_struct *w)
> }
>
> if (!mem_cgroup_tryget_online(memcg)) {
> - /* drop the reference from mem_cgroup_iter() */
> - mem_cgroup_iter_break(NULL, memcg);
> - zswap_next_shrink = NULL;
> + /*
> + * It is an offline memcg which we cannot shrink
> + * until its pages are reparented.
> + *
> + * Since we cannot determine if the offline cleaner has
> + * been already called or not, the offline memcg must be
> + * put back unconditonally. We cannot abort the loop while
> + * zswap_next_shrink has a reference of this offline memcg.
> + */
You actually deleted the code that actually puts the ref to the
offline memcg above.
Why don't you just replace mem_cgroup_iter_break(NULL, memcg) with
mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, memcg, NULL) here? I don't understand what the
patch is trying to do to be honest. This patch is a lot more confusing
than it should be.
Also, I would like Nhat to weigh in here. Perhaps the decision to
reset the iterator instead of advancing it in this case was made for a
reason that we should honor. Maybe cgroups are usually offlined
together so we will keep running into offline cgroups here if we
continue? I am not sure.
> spin_unlock(&zswap_shrink_lock);
> -
> - if (++failures == MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES)
> - break;
> -
> - goto resched;
> + goto iternext;
> }
> + /*
> + * We got an extra memcg reference before unlocking.
> + * The cleaner cannot free it using zswap_next_shrink.
> + *
> + * Our memcg can be offlined after we get online memcg here.
> + * In this case, the cleaner is waiting the lock just behind us.
> + */
> spin_unlock(&zswap_shrink_lock);
>
> ret = shrink_memcg(memcg);
> @@ -1457,6 +1500,12 @@ static void shrink_worker(struct work_struct *w)
> resched:
> cond_resched();
> } while (zswap_total_pages() > thr);
> +
> + /*
> + * We can still hold the original memcg reference.
> + * The reference is stored in zswap_next_shrink, and then reused
> + * by the next shrink_worker().
> + */
> }
>
> /*********************************
> --
> 2.43.0
>
