On 2024/2/2 09:11, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 03:49:06PM +0000, Chengming Zhou wrote: >> Since we don't need to leave zswap entry on the zswap tree anymore, >> we should remove it from tree once we find it from the tree. >> >> Then after using it, we can directly free it, no concurrent path >> can find it from tree. Only the shrinker can see it from lru list, >> which will also double check under tree lock, so no race problem. >> >> So we don't need refcount in zswap entry anymore and don't need to >> take the spinlock for the second time to invalidate it. >> >> The side effect is that zswap_entry_free() maybe not happen in tree >> spinlock, but it's ok since nothing need to be protected by the lock. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > This looks like a great simplification, and a good motivation to only > support exclusive loads. Everything is more straightforward because > every tree lookup implies a removal and exclusive ownership. Right, much simpler! > > Let's see if removing support for non-exclusive loads is agreeable first > though :) Ok, I have just posted some testing data for discussion. Thanks.
