On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:14:39PM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> Hi Mel --
>
> Wow! An incredibly wonderfully detailed response! Thank you very
> much for taking the time to read through all of zcache!
>
My pleasure.
> Your comments run the gamut from nit and code style, to design,
> architecture and broad naming. Until the choice-of-codebase issue
> is resolved, I'll avoid the nits and codestyle comments and respond
> to the higher level strategic and design questions.
That's fair enough. FWIW, I would never consider the nits to be
blockers. If all the complaints I had were nits then there would be no
real issue to merging it to the core.
> Since a couple
> of your questions are repeated and the specific code which provoked
> your question is not isolated, I hope it is OK if I answer those
> first out-of-context from your original comments in the code.
> (This should also make this easier to read and to extract optimal
> meaning, for you and for posterity.)
Sure. I recognise that I was repeating myself at parts.
> > That said, I worry that this has bounced around a lot and as Dan (the
> > original author) has a rewrite. I'm wary of spending too much time on this
> > at all. Is Dan's new code going to replace this or what? It'd be nice to
> > find a definitive answer on that.
>
> Replacing this code was my intent, but that was blocked. IMHO zcache2
> is _much_ better than the "demo version" of zcache (aka zcache1).
> Hopefully a middle ground can be reached. I've proposed one privately
> offlist.
>
Ok. Unfortunately I cannot help resolve that issue but I'll mention it
again later.
> Seth, please feel free to augment or correct anything below, or
> respond to anything I haven't commented on.
>
> > Anyway, here goes
>
> Repeated comments answered first out-of-context:
>
> 1) The interrupt context for zcache (and any tmem backend) is imposed
> by the frontend callers. Cleancache_put [see naming comment below]
> is always called with interrupts disabled.
Ok, I sortof see. It's always called within the irq-safe mapping tree_lock
and that infects the lower layers in a sense. It still feels like a layering
violation and minimally I would expect this is propagated down by making
locks like the hb->lock IRQ-safe and document the locking accordingly.
> Cleancache_flush is
> sometimes called with interrupts disabled and sometimes not.
> Cleancache_get is never called in an atomic context. (I think)
> frontswap_get/put/flush are never called in an atomic context but
> sometimes with the swap_lock held. Because it is dangerous (true?)
> for code to sometimes/not be called in atomic context, much of the
> code in zcache and tmem is forced into atomic context.
FWIW, if it can be called from a context with IRQs disabled then it must
be consistent throughout or it's unsafe. At the very least lockdep will
throw a fit if it is inconsistent.
> BUT Andrea
> observed that there are situations where asynchronicity would be
> preferable and, it turns out that cleancache_get and frontswap_get
> are never called in atomic context. Zcache2/ramster takes advantage of
> that, and a future KVM backend may want to do so as well. However,
> the interrupt/atomicity model and assumptions certainly does deserve
> better documentation.
>
Minimally, move the locking to use the irq-safe with spin_lock_irqsave
rather than the current arrangement of calling local_irq_save() in
places. That alone would make it a bit easier to follow.
> 2) The naming of the core tmem functions (put, get, flush) has been
> discussed endlessly, everyone has a different opinion, and the
> current state is a mess: cleancache, frontswap, and the various
> backends are horribly inconsistent. IMHO, the use of "put"
> and "get" for reference counting is a historical accident, and
> the tmem ABI names were chosen well before I understood the historical
> precedence and the potential for confusion by kernel developers.
> So I don't have a good answer... I'd prefer the ABI-documented
> names, but if they are unacceptable, at least we need to agree
> on a consistent set of names and fix all references in all
> the various tmem parts (and possibly Xen and the kernel<->Xen
> ABI as well).
>
Ok, I see. Well, it's unfortunate but I'm not going to throw the toys out
of the pram over it either. Changing the names at this stage might just
confuse the people who are already familiar with the code. I'm the newbie
here so the confusion about terminology is my problem.
> The rest of my comments/replies are in context.
>
> > > +/*
> > > + * A tmem host implementation must use this function to register
> > > + * callbacks for a page-accessible memory (PAM) implementation
> > > + */
> > > +static struct tmem_pamops tmem_pamops;
> > > +
> > > +void tmem_register_pamops(struct tmem_pamops *m)
> > > +{
> > > + tmem_pamops = *m;
> > > +}
> > > +
> >
> > This implies that this can only host one client at a time. I suppose
> > that's ok to start with but is there ever an expectation that zcache +
> > something else would be enabled at the same time?
>
> There was some thought that zcache and Xen (or KVM) might somehow "chain"
> the implementations.
>
Ok, in that case it should at least detect if an attempt is ever made to
chain and bail out.
> > > +/*
> > > + * A tmem_obj contains a radix-tree-like tree in which the intermediate
> > > + * nodes are called tmem_objnodes. (The kernel lib/radix-tree.c implementation
> > > + * is very specialized and tuned for specific uses and is not particularly
> > > + * suited for use from this code, though some code from the core algorithms has
> >
> > This is a bit vague. It asserts that lib/radix-tree is unsuitable but
> > not why. I skipped over most of the implementation to be honest.
>
> IIRC, lib/radix-tree is highly tuned for mm's needs. Things like
> tagging and rcu weren't a good fit for tmem, and new things like calling
> a different allocator needed to be added. In the long run it might
> be possible for the lib version to serve both needs, but the impediment
> and aggravation of merging all necessary changes into lib seemed a high price
> to pay for a hundred lines of code implementing a variation of a widely
> documented tree algorithm.
>
Ok, thanks for the explanation. I think in that case it just needs to be
in a file of it's own and maybe clearly name in case there ever is the
case that another subsystem can reuse the same data structure. I suspect
in the future there might be people who want to create RAM-like devices
backed by SSD and they may benefit from similar data structures. I do
not have a suggestion on good names unfortunately.
> > > + * These "tmem core" operations are implemented in the following functions.
> >
> > More nits. As this defines a boundary between two major components it
> > probably should have its own Documentation/ entry and the APIs should have
> > kernel doc comments.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > > + * a corner case: What if a page with matching handle already exists in
> > > + * tmem? To guarantee coherency, one of two actions is necessary: Either
> > > + * the data for the page must be overwritten, or the page must be
> > > + * "flushed" so that the data is not accessible to a subsequent "get".
> > > + * Since these "duplicate puts" are relatively rare, this implementation
> > > + * always flushes for simplicity.
> > > + */
> >
> > At first glance that sounds really dangerous. If two different users can have
> > the same oid for different data, what prevents the wrong data being fetched?
> > From this level I expect that it's something the layers above it have to
> > manage and in practice they must be preventing duplicates ever happening
> > but I'm guessing. At some point it would be nice if there was an example
> > included here explaining why duplicates are not a bug.
>
> VFS decides when to call cleancache and dups do happen. Honestly, I don't
> know why they happen (though Chris Mason, who wrote the cleancache hooks,
> may know) they happen,
Because you mentioned Chris Mason it might be specific to btrfs and snapshots
i.e. a page at a given offset in an inode but in two snapshots might alias
in zcache. This would be legal but rare. If this is accurate it should be
commented on.
> but the above coherency rules for backend implementation
> always work. The same is true of frontswap.
>
I'm less sure the situation can even happen with frontswap but that is a
complete guess as I simply am not familiar enough with this code.
> > > +int tmem_replace(struct tmem_pool *pool, struct tmem_oid *oidp,
> > > + uint32_t index, void *new_pampd)
> > > +{
> > > + struct tmem_obj *obj;
> > > + int ret = -1;
> > > + struct tmem_hashbucket *hb;
> > > +
> > > + hb = &pool->hashbucket[tmem_oid_hash(oidp)];
> > > + spin_lock(&hb->lock);
> > > + obj = tmem_obj_find(hb, oidp);
> > > + if (obj == NULL)
> > > + goto out;
> > > + new_pampd = tmem_pampd_replace_in_obj(obj, index, new_pampd);
> > > + ret = (*tmem_pamops.replace_in_obj)(new_pampd, obj);
> > > +out:
> > > + spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> >
> > Nothin in this patch uses this. It looks like ramster would depend on it
> > but at a glance, ramster seems to have its own copy of the code. I guess
> > this is what Dan was referring to as the fork and at some point that needs
> > to be resolved. Here, it looks like dead code.
>
> Yep, this was a first step toward supporting ramster (and any other
> future asynchronous-get tmem backends).
>
Ok. I don't really see why it's connected to asynchronous get. I was
reading it as a convenient helper.
> > > +static inline void tmem_oid_set_invalid(struct tmem_oid *oidp)
> > > +
> > > +static inline bool tmem_oid_valid(struct tmem_oid *oidp)
> > > +
> > > +static inline int tmem_oid_compare(struct tmem_oid *left,
> > > + struct tmem_oid *right)
> > > +{
> > > +}
> >
> > Holy Branches Batman!
> >
> > Bit of a jumble but works at least. Nits: mixes ret = and returns
> > mid-way. Could have been implemented with a while loop. Only has one
> > caller and should have been in the C file that uses it. There was no need
> > to explicitely mark it inline either with just one caller.
>
> It was put here to group object operations together sort
> of as if it is an abstract datatype. No objections
> to moving it.
>
Ok. I am not pushed either way to be honest.
> > > +++ b/drivers/mm/zcache/zcache-main.c
> > > + *
> > > + * Zcache provides an in-kernel "host implementation" for transcendent memory
> > > + * and, thus indirectly, for cleancache and frontswap. Zcache includes two
> > > + * page-accessible memory [1] interfaces, both utilizing the crypto compression
> > > + * API:
> > > + * 1) "compression buddies" ("zbud") is used for ephemeral pages
> > > + * 2) zsmalloc is used for persistent pages.
> > > + * Xvmalloc (based on the TLSF allocator) has very low fragmentation
> > > + * so maximizes space efficiency, while zbud allows pairs (and potentially,
> > > + * in the future, more than a pair of) compressed pages to be closely linked
> > > + * so that reclaiming can be done via the kernel's physical-page-oriented
> > > + * "shrinker" interface.
> > > + *
> >
> > Doesn't actually explain why zbud is good for one and zsmalloc good for the other.
>
> There's been extensive discussion of that elsewhere and the
> equivalent description in zcache2 is better, but I agree this
> needs to be in Documentation/, once the zcache1/zcache2 discussion settles.
>
Ok, that really does need to be settled in some fashion but I have no
recommendations on how to do it. Ordinarily there is a hatred of having
two implementations of the same functionality in-tree. I know the virtio
people have been fighting about something recently but it's not unheard
of either. jbd and jbd2 exist for example.
> > > +#if 0
> > > +/* this is more aggressive but may cause other problems? */
> > > +#define ZCACHE_GFP_MASK (GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN)
> >
> > Why is this "more agressive"? If anything it's less aggressive because it'll
> > bail if there is no memory available. Get rid of this.
>
> My understanding (from Jeremy Fitzhardinge I think) was that GFP_ATOMIC
> would use a special reserve of pages which might lead to OOMs.
It might, but it's a stretch. The greater concern to me is that using
GFP_ATOMIC means that zcache expansions will not enter direct page
reclaim and instead depend on kswapd to do the necessary work. It would
make adding pages to zcache under memory pressure a hit and miss affair.
Considering that frontswap is a possible frontend and swapping happens in the
presense of memory pressure it would imply to me that using GFP_ATOMIC is
the worst possible choice for zcache and the aging simply feels "wrong". I
much prefer the gfp mask it is currently using for this reason.
Again, this is based on a lot of guesswork so take with a grain of salt.
> More experimentation may be warranted.
>
Personally I wouldn't bother and instead stick with the current
ZCACHE_GFP_MASK.
> > > +#else
> > > +#define ZCACHE_GFP_MASK \
> > > + (__GFP_FS | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC)
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > > +#define MAX_CLIENTS 16
> >
> > Seems a bit arbitrary. Why 16?
>
> Sasha Levin posted a patch to fix this but it was tied in to
> the proposed KVM implementation, so was never merged.
>
Ok, so it really is just an arbitrary choice. It's probably not an
issue, just looked odd.
> > > +#define LOCAL_CLIENT ((uint16_t)-1)
> > > +
> > > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> > > +
> > > +struct zcache_client {
> > > + struct idr tmem_pools;
> > > + struct zs_pool *zspool;
> > > + bool allocated;
> > > + atomic_t refcount;
> > > +};
> >
> > why is "allocated" needed. Is the refcount not enough to determine if this
> > client is in use or not?
>
> May be a historical accident. Deserves a second look.
>
Ok. Again, it's not a major deal, it just looks weird.
> > > + * Compression buddies ("zbud") provides for packing two (or, possibly
> > > + * in the future, more) compressed ephemeral pages into a single "raw"
> > > + * (physical) page and tracking them with data structures so that
> > > + * the raw pages can be easily reclaimed.
> > > + *
> >
> > Ok, if I'm reading this right it implies that a page must at least compress
> > by 50% before zcache even accepts the page.
>
> NO! Zbud matches up pages that compress well with those that don't.
> There's a lot more detailed description of this in zcache2.
>
Oh.... ok. I thought the buddy arrangement would require at least 50%
compression. To be honest, I'm happier with that limitation than trying
to figure out the buckets sizes to deal with varying compressions but
that's me being lazy :)
> > > +static atomic_t zcache_zbud_curr_raw_pages;
> > > +static atomic_t zcache_zbud_curr_zpages;
> >
> > Should not have been necessary to make these atomics. Probably protected
> > by zbpg_unused_list_spinlock or something similar.
>
> Agreed, but it gets confusing when monitoring zcache
> if certain key counters go negative.
Do they really go negative? It's not obvious why they should but even if
they can it could be bodged to print 0 if the value is negative. I didn't
double check it but I think we already do something like that for vmstat
when per-cpu counter drift can make a counter appear negative.
Bodging it would be preferable to incurring the cost of atomic updates.
Atomics also make new reviewers start worrying that the locking is
flawed somehow! An atomic_read > 0 followed by data deletion just looks
like a problem waiting to happen. The expected pattern for atomics in a
situation like this involves atomic_dec_and_test() to atomically catch
when a reference count reaches 0.
> Ideally this
> should all be eventually tied to some runtime debug flag
> but it's not clear yet what counters might be used
> by future userland software.
>
Move to debugfs maybe? With or without that move, it seems to me that the
counters are for monitoring and debugging similar to what /proc/vmstat
is fot. I would very much hope that monitor tools would be tolerant to
the available statistics changing and it wouldn't be part of the ABI. For
example, some of the vmstat names changed recently and no one threw a fit.
Ok... I threw a fit because they broke MMTests but it took all of 10
minutes to handle it and MMTests only broke because I was lazy in the
first place.
> > > +static unsigned long zcache_zbud_curr_zbytes;
> >
> > Overkill, this is just
> >
> > zcache_zbud_curr_raw_pages << PAGE_SHIFT
>
> No, it allows a measure of the average compression,
> irrelevant of the number of pageframes required.
>
Ah, ok, that makes more sense actually.
> > > +static unsigned long zcache_zbud_cumul_zpages;
> > > +static unsigned long zcache_zbud_cumul_zbytes;
> > > +static unsigned long zcache_compress_poor;
> > > +static unsigned long zcache_mean_compress_poor;
> >
> > In general the stats keeping is going to suck on larger machines as these
> > are all shared writable cache lines. You might be able to mitigate the
> > impact in the future by moving these to vmstat. Maybe it doesn't matter
> > as such - it all depends on what velocity pages enter and leave zcache.
> > If that velocity is high, maybe the performance is shot anyway.
>
> Agreed. Velocity is on the order of the number of disk
> pages read per second plus pswpin+pswpout per second.
I see.
> It's not clear yet if that is high enough for the
> stat counters to affect performance but it seems unlikely
> except possibly on huge NUMA machines.
>
Meaning the KVM people would want this fixed eventually particularly if
they back swap with very fast storage. I know they are not a current user
but it seems like they *should* be eventually. It's not a blocker but some
of the statistics gathering should eventually move to something like vmstat.
Obviously, it would be a lot easier to do that if zcache[1|2] was part of
the core vm :)
> > > +static inline unsigned zbud_max_buddy_size(void)
> > > +{
> > > + return MAX_CHUNK << CHUNK_SHIFT;
> > > +}
> > > +
> >
> > Is the max size not half of MAX_CHUNK as the page is split into two buddies?
>
> No, see above.
>
My bad, it's actually a bit tricky at first reading to see how all this
hangs together. That's fine, I'm ok with having things explained to me.
> > > + if (zbpg == NULL)
> > > + /* none on zbpg list, try to get a kernel page */
> > > + zbpg = zcache_get_free_page();
> >
> > So zcache_get_free_page() is getting a preloaded page from a per-cpu magazine
> > and that thing blows up if there is no page available. This implies that
> > preemption must be disabled for the entire putting of a page into zcache!
> >
> > > + if (likely(zbpg != NULL)) {
> >
> > It's not just likely, it's impossible because if it's NULL,
> > zcache_get_free_page() will already have BUG().
> >
> > If it's the case that preemption is *not* disabled and the process gets
> > scheduled to a CPU that has its magazine consumed then this will blow up
> > in some cases.
> >
> > Scary.
>
> This code is all redesigned/rewritten in zcache2.
>
So the problem is sortof real and if it is avoided it is because this
interrupts disabled limitation that is being enforced. It appears that the
interrupts disabling is just a co-incidence and it would be best to not
depend on it for zcache to be "correct". Does zcache2 deal with this problem?
> > Ok, so if this thing fails to allocate a page then what prevents us getting into
> > a situation where the zcache grows to a large size and we cannot take decompress
> > anything in it because we cannot allocate a page here?
> >
> > It looks like this could potentially deadlock the system unless it was possible
> > to either discard zcache data and reconstruct it from information on disk.
> > It feels like something like a mempool needs to exist that is used to forcibly
> > shrink the zcache somehow but I can't seem to find where something like that happens.
> >
> > Where is it or is there a risk of deadlock here?
>
> I am fairly sure there is no risk of deadlock here. The callers
> to cleancache_get and frontswap_get always provide a struct page
> for the decompression.
What happens if they cannot allocate a page?
> Cleancache pages in zcache can always
> be discarded whenever required.
>
What about frontswap?
> The risk for OOMs does exist when we start trying to force
> frontswap-zcache zpages out to the swap disk. This work
> is currently in progress and I hope to have a patch for
> review soon.
>
Good news. It would be a big job but my initial reaction is that you need
a mempool to emergency evict pages. Not exactly sure how it would all hang
together unfortunately but it should be coped with if zcache is to be used
in production.
> > > + BUG_ON(!irqs_disabled());
> > > + if (unlikely(dmem == NULL))
> > > + goto out; /* no buffer or no compressor so can't compress */
> > > + *out_len = PAGE_SIZE << ZCACHE_DSTMEM_ORDER;
> > > + from_va = kmap_atomic(from);
> >
> > Ok, so I am running out of beans here but this triggered alarm bells. Is
> > zcache stored in lowmem? If so, then it might be a total no-go on 32-bit
> > systems if pages from highmem cause increased low memory pressure to put
> > the page into zcache.
>
> Personally, I'm neither an expert nor an advocate of lowmem systems
> but Seth said he has tested zcache ("demo version") there.
>
Ok, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement. highmem/lowmem issues
completely suck. It looks like the ideal would be that zcache supports
storing of compressed pages in highmem but that probably means that the
pages have to be kmap()ed before passing them to the compression
algorithm. Due to the interrupt-disabled issue it would have to be
kmap_atomic and then it all goes completely to crap.
I for one would be ok with making zcache 64-bit only.
> > > + mb();
> >
> > .... Why?
>
> Historical accident... I think this was required in the Xen version.
>
Ok, it would be really nice to have a comment explaining why the barrier
is there or get rid of it completely.
> > > + if (nr >= 0) {
> > > + if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
> > > + /* does this case really need to be skipped? */
> > > + goto out;
> >
> > Answer that question. It's not obvious at all why zcache cannot handle
> > !__GFP_FS. You're not obviously recursing into a filesystem.
>
> Yep, this is a remaining loose end. The documentation
> of this (in the shrinker code) was pretty vague so this
> is "safety" code that probably should be removed after
> a decent test proves it can be.
>
Not sure what documentation that is but I bet you a shiny penny it's
worried about icache/dcache shrinking and that's why there are worries
about filesystem recursion.
> > > +static int zcache_get_page(int cli_id, int pool_id, struct tmem_oid *oidp,
> > > + uint32_t index, struct page *page)
> > > +{
> > > + struct tmem_pool *pool;
> > > + int ret = -1;
> > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > + size_t size = PAGE_SIZE;
> > > +
> > > + local_irq_save(flags);
> >
> > Why do interrupts have to be disabled?
> >
> > This makes the locking between tmem and zcache very confusing unfortunately
> > because I cannot decide if tmem indirectly depends on disabled interrupts
> > or not. It's also not clear why an interrupt handler would be trying to
> > get/put pages in tmem.
>
> Yes, irq disablement goes away for gets in zcache2.
>
Great.
> > > + pool = zcache_get_pool_by_id(cli_id, pool_id);
> > > + if (likely(pool != NULL)) {
> > > + if (atomic_read(&pool->obj_count) > 0)
> > > + ret = tmem_get(pool, oidp, index, (char *)(page),
> > > + &size, 0, is_ephemeral(pool));
> >
> > It looks like you are disabling interrupts to avoid racing on that atomic
> > update.
> >
> > This feels very shaky and the layering is being violated. You should
> > unconditionally call into tmem_get and not worry about the pool count at
> > all. tmem_get should then check the count under the pool lock and make
> > obj_count a normal counter instead of an atomic.
> >
> > The same comment applies to all the other obj_count locations.
>
> This isn't the reason for irq disabling, see previous.
> It's possible atomic obj_count can go away as it may
> have only been necessary in a previous tmem locking design.
>
Ok, then in principal I would like to see the obj_count check go away
and pass responsibility down to the lower layer.
> > > + /* wait for pool activity on other cpus to quiesce */
> > > + while (atomic_read(&pool->refcount) != 0)
> > > + ;
> >
> > There *HAS* to be a better way of waiting before destroying the pool
> > than than a busy wait.
>
> Most probably. Pool destruction is relatively very rare (umount and
> swapoff), so fixing/testing this has never bubbled up to the top
> of the list.
>
Yeah, I guessed that might be the case but I could not let a busy wait
slide by without comment. If Peter saw this and thought I missed it he
would be laughing at me for months. It's wrong and needs to go away at
some point.
> > Feels like this should be in its own file with a clear interface to
> > zcache-main.c . Minor point, at this point I'm fatigued reading the code
> > and cranky.
>
> Perhaps. In zcache2, all the zbud code is moved to a separate
> code module, so zcache-main.c is much shorter.
>
Ok, so at the very least the zcache1 and zcache2 implementations can
move closer together by doing the same split.
> > > +static void zcache_cleancache_put_page(int pool_id,
> > > + struct cleancache_filekey key,
> > > + pgoff_t index, struct page *page)
> > > +{
> > > + u32 ind = (u32) index;
> >
> > This looks like an interesting limitation. How sure are you that index
> > will never be larger than u32 and this start behaving badly? I guess it's
> > because the index is going to be related to PFN and there are not that
> > many 16TB machines lying around but this looks like something that could
> > bite us on the ass one day.
>
> The limitation is for a >16TB _file_ on a cleancache-aware filesystem.
I see. That makes sense now that you say it. The UUID is not going be based
on the block device, it's going to be based on an inode + some offset with
some swizzling to handle snapshots. I was thinking of frontswap backing
the physical address space at the time and think it might still be a
problem, but not a blocking one.
This doesn't need to be documented because a sufficiently motivated
person can figure it out. I was not sufficiently motivated :)
> And it's not a hard limitation: Since the definition of tmem/cleancache
> allows for it to ignore any put, pages above 16TB in a single file
> can be rejected. So, yes, it will still eventually bite us on
> the ass, but not before huge parts of the kernel need to be rewritten too.
>
That's fair enough. The situation should be at least detected though.
> > > +/*
> > > + * zcache initialization
> > > + * NOTE FOR NOW zcache MUST BE PROVIDED AS A KERNEL BOOT PARAMETER OR
> > > + * NOTHING HAPPENS!
> > > + */
> > > +
> >
> > ok..... why?
> >
> > superficially there does not appear to be anything obvious that stops it
> > being turned on at runtime. Hardly a blocked, just odd.
>
> The issue is that zcache must be active when a filesystem is mounted
> (and at swapon time) or the filesystem will be ignored.
>
Ok so ultimately it should be possible to remount a filesystem with
zcache enabled. Not a blocking issue, just would be nice.
> A patch has been posted by a University team to fix this but
> it hasn't been merged yet. I agree it should before zcache
> should be widely used.
>
Meh, actually I did not view this as a blocker. It's clumsy but the
other concerns were more important.
> > > + * zsmalloc memory allocator
> >
> > Ok, I didn't read anything after this point. It's another allocator that
> > may or may not pack compressed pages better. The usual concerns about
> > internal fragmentation and the like apply but I'm not going to mull over them
> > now.
> > The really interesting part was deciding if zcache was ready or not.
> >
> > So, on zcache, zbud and the underlying tmem thing;
> >
> > The locking is convulated, the interrupt disabling suspicious and there is at
> > least one place where it looks like we are depending on not being scheduled
> > on another CPU during a long operation. It may actually be that you are
> > disabling interrupts to prevent that happening but it's not documented. Even
> > if it's the case, disabling interrupts to avoid CPU migration is overkill.
>
> Explained above, but more work may be possible here.
>
Agreed.
> > I'm also worried that there appears to be no control over how large
> > the zcache can get
>
> There is limited control in zcache1. The policy is handled much better
> in zcache2. More work definitely remains.
>
Ok.
> > and am suspicious it can increase lowmem pressure on
> > 32-bit machines. If the lowmem pressure is real then zcache should not
> > be available on machines with highmem at all. I'm *really* worried that
> > it can deadlock if a page allocation fails before decompressing a page.
>
> I've explicitly tested cases where page allocation fails in both versions
> of zcache so I know it works, though I obviously can't guarantee it _always_
> works.
Yeah, I get your point. An allocation failure might be handled but I'm
worried about the case where the allocation fails *and* the system
cannot do anything about it. Similar situations happen if the page
allocator gets broken by a patch and does not enforce watermarks which
is why the alarm bell triggered for me.
> In zcache2, when an alloc_page fails, a cleancache_put will
> "eat its own tail" (i.e. reclaim and immediately reuse the LRU zpageframe)
Conceptually, I *really* like that idea. It seems that it would be much
more robust in general.
> and a frontswap_put will eat the LRU cleancache pageframe. Zcache1
> doesn't fail or deadlock, but just rejects all new frontswap puts when
> zsmalloc becomes full.
>
Which could get awkward. The contents of zcache in that case could be
completely inappropriate and lead to a type of priority inversion
problem. It would be hard to debug.
> > That said, my initial feeling still stands. I think that this needs to move
> > out of staging because it's in limbo where it is but Andrew may disagree
> > because of the reservations. If my reservations are accurate then they
> > should at least be *clearly* documented with a note saying that using
> > this in production is ill-advised for now. If zcache is activated via the
> > kernel parameter, it should print a big dirty warning that the feature is
> > still experiemental and leave that warning there until all the issues are
> > addressed. Right now I'm not convinced this is production ready but that
> > the issues could be fixed incrementally.
>
> Sounds good... but begs the question whether to promote zcache1
> or zcache2. Or some compromise.
>
I don't have a good suggestion on how to resolve that. The people who
handled the jbd vs jbd2 issue might. Andrew, Ted or Jan might know the
history there. I was blissfully ignorant.
> Thanks again, Mel, for taking the (obviously tons of) time to go
> through the code and ask intelligent questions and point out the
> many nits and minor issues due to my (and others) kernel newbieness!
>
I'm the newbie here, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions
:)
Bottom line for me remains the same. I think something like this should be
promoted if frontcache/cleancache are going to be used in generally available
systems properly but the limitations need to be clearly documented and
dirty warnings printed on activation until it's production ready. The
zcache1 vs zcache2 problem must be resolved but I would suggest that it
be done by either mering all the features of zcache2 into zcache1 until
it disappears *or* the exact opposite -- both get merged, maintain API
compatibility but zcache1 get critical bug fixes only and all development
take place on zcache2. Having never looked at zcache2 I cannot be sure
which is the better idea. If zcache2 is shown to handle some fundamental
problems though then merging both but forcing a freeze on new features in
zcache1 seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
