2024年6月13日(木) 11:18 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > 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 == memcg) {
> > do {
> > zswap_next_shrink = 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.
