On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 6:03 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 02:41:26PM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 2:23 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 17:02:25 -0800 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 8:18 PM Chengming Zhou
> > > > <zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Also after the common decompress part goes to __zswap_load(), we can
> > > > > cleanup the zswap_reclaim_entry() a little.
> > > >
> > > > I think you mean zswap_writeback_entry(), same for the commit title.
> > >
> > > I updated my copy of the changelog, thanks.
> > >
> > > > > - /*
> > > > > - * If we get here because the page is already in swapcache, a
> > > > > - * load may be happening concurrently. It is safe and okay to
> > > > > - * not free the entry. It is also okay to return !0.
> > > > > - */
> > > >
> > > > This comment should be moved above the failure check of
> > > > __read_swap_cache_async() above, not completely removed.
> > >
> > > This?
> >
> > Yes, thanks a lot. Although I think a new version is needed anyway to
> > address other comments.
> >
> > >
> > > --- a/mm/zswap.c~mm-zswap-cleanup-zswap_reclaim_entry-fix
> > > +++ a/mm/zswap.c
> > > @@ -1457,8 +1457,14 @@ static int zswap_writeback_entry(struct
> > > mpol = get_task_policy(current);
> > > page = __read_swap_cache_async(swpentry, GFP_KERNEL, mpol,
> > > NO_INTERLEAVE_INDEX, &page_was_allocated, true);
> > > - if (!page)
> > > + if (!page) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * If we get here because the page is already in swapcache, a
> > > + * load may be happening concurrently. It is safe and okay to
> > > + * not free the entry. It is also okay to return !0.
> > > + */
> > > return -ENOMEM;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > /* Found an existing page, we raced with load/swapin */
> > > if (!page_was_allocated) {
>
> That's the wrong branch, no?
>
> !page -> -ENOMEM
>
> page && !page_was_allocated -> already in swapcache
Ah yes, my bad.
>
> Personally, I don't really get the comment. What does it mean that
> it's "okay" not to free the entry? There is a put, which may or may
> not free the entry if somebody else is using it. Is it explaining how
> lifetime works for refcounted objects? I'm similarly confused by the
> "it's okay" to return non-zero. What is that trying to convey?
>
> Deletion seemed like the right choice here, IMO ;)
It's not the clearest of comments for sure. I think it is just trying
to say that it is okay not to write back the entry from zswap and to
fail, because the caller will just try another page. I did not like
silently deleting the comment during the refactoring. How about
rewriting it to something like:
/*
* If we get here because the page is already in the swapcache, a
* load may be happening concurrently. Skip this page, the caller
* will move on to a different page.
*/
