On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 06:39:13AM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> 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.
> */
Well there is this one already on the branch:
/* Found an existing page, we raced with load/swapin */
which covers the first half. The unspoken assumption there is that
writeback is an operation for an aged out page, while swapin means the
age just got reset to 0. Maybe it makes sense to elaborate on that?
