My previous email got messed up, sorry.
> > > @@ -462,9 +463,9 @@ static void zswap_lru_putback(struct list_lru *list_lru,
> > > /*********************************
> > > * rbtree functions
> > > **********************************/
> > > -static struct zswap_entry *zswap_rb_search(struct rb_root *root, pgoff_t offset)
> > > +static struct zswap_entry *zswap_search(struct zswap_tree *tree, pgoff_t offset)
> >
> > Let's change the zswap_rb_* prefixes to zswap_tree_* instead of just
> > zswap_*. Otherwise, it will be confusing to have both zswap_store and
> > zswap_insert (as well as zswap_load and zswap_search).
>
> How about zswap_xa_* ?
SGTM.
> >
> > [..]
> > > @@ -1790,15 +1808,21 @@ void zswap_swapon(int type)
> > > void zswap_swapoff(int type)
> > > {
> > > struct zswap_tree *tree = zswap_trees[type];
> > > - struct zswap_entry *entry, *n;
> > > + struct zswap_entry *entry, *e, *n;
> > > + XA_STATE(xas, tree ? &tree->xarray : NULL, 0);
> > >
> > > if (!tree)
> > > return;
> > >
> > > /* walk the tree and free everything */
> > > spin_lock(&tree->lock);
> > > +
> > > + xas_for_each(&xas, e, ULONG_MAX)
> >
> > Why not use xa_for_each?
> >
> > > + zswap_invalidate_entry(tree, e);
> > > +
> > > rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe(entry, n, &tree->rbroot, rbnode)
> > > - zswap_free_entry(entry);
> >
> > Replacing zswap_free_entry() with zswap_invalidate_entry() is a
> > behavioral change that should be done separate from this series, but I
> > am wondering why it's needed. IIUC, the swapoff code should be making
> > sure there are no ongoing swapin/swapout operations, and there are no
> > pages left in zswap to writeback.
> >
> > Is it the case that swapoff may race with writeback, such that
> > writeback is holding the last remaining ref after zswap_invalidate()
> > is called, and then zswap_swapoff() is called freeing the zswap entry
> > while writeback is still accessing it?
>
> For the RB tree the mapping is stored in the zswap entry as RB node.
> That is different from xarray. Xarry stores the mapping outside of
> zswap entry. Just freeing the entry does not remove the mapping from
> xarray. Therefore it needs to call zswap_invalidate_entry() to remove
> the entry from the xarray. I could call zswap_erase() then free entry.
> I just think zswap_invalidate_entry() is more consistent with the rest
> of the code.
I see, but it's not clear to me if the xarray is being properly
cleaned up in this case.
Do we have to call xa_destroy() anyway to make sure everything is
cleaned up in the xarray? In that case, we can just do that after the
loop.
