On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 7:50 AM Chengming Zhou
<zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> cat /sys/kernel/debug/zswap/duplicate_entry
> 2086447
>
> When testing, the duplicate_entry value is very high, but no warning
> message in the kernel log. From the comment of duplicate_entry
> "Duplicate store was encountered (rare)", it seems something goes wrong.
>
> Actually it's incremented in the beginning of zswap_store(), which found
> its zswap entry has already on the tree. And this is a normal case,
> since the folio could leave zswap entry on the tree after swapin,
> later it's dirtied and swapout/zswap_store again, found its original
> zswap entry. (Maybe we can reuse it instead of invalidating it?)
Interesting. So if we make invalidate load the only mode, this oddity
is gone as well?
>
> So duplicate_entry should be only incremented in the real bug case,
> which already have "WARN_ON(1)", it looks redundant to count bug case,
> so this patch just remove it.
But yeah, I have literally never checked this value (maybe I should
ha). I'm fine with removing it, unless someone has a strong case for
this counter?
For now:
Reviewed-by: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/zswap.c | 9 +--------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c
> index 4381b7a2d4d6..3fbb7e2c8b8d 100644
> --- a/mm/zswap.c
> +++ b/mm/zswap.c
> @@ -71,8 +71,6 @@ static u64 zswap_reject_compress_poor;
> static u64 zswap_reject_alloc_fail;
> /* Store failed because the entry metadata could not be allocated (rare) */
> static u64 zswap_reject_kmemcache_fail;
> -/* Duplicate store was encountered (rare) */
> -static u64 zswap_duplicate_entry;
>
> /* Shrinker work queue */
> static struct workqueue_struct *shrink_wq;
> @@ -1571,10 +1569,8 @@ bool zswap_store(struct folio *folio)
> */
> spin_lock(&tree->lock);
> entry = zswap_rb_search(&tree->rbroot, offset);
> - if (entry) {
> + if (entry)
> zswap_invalidate_entry(tree, entry);
> - zswap_duplicate_entry++;
> - }
> spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
> objcg = get_obj_cgroup_from_folio(folio);
> if (objcg && !obj_cgroup_may_zswap(objcg)) {
> @@ -1661,7 +1657,6 @@ bool zswap_store(struct folio *folio)
> */
> while (zswap_rb_insert(&tree->rbroot, entry, &dupentry) == -EEXIST) {
> WARN_ON(1);
> - zswap_duplicate_entry++;
> zswap_invalidate_entry(tree, dupentry);
> }
> if (entry->length) {
> @@ -1822,8 +1817,6 @@ static int zswap_debugfs_init(void)
> zswap_debugfs_root, &zswap_reject_compress_poor);
> debugfs_create_u64("written_back_pages", 0444,
> zswap_debugfs_root, &zswap_written_back_pages);
> - debugfs_create_u64("duplicate_entry", 0444,
> - zswap_debugfs_root, &zswap_duplicate_entry);
> debugfs_create_u64("pool_total_size", 0444,
> zswap_debugfs_root, &zswap_pool_total_size);
> debugfs_create_atomic_t("stored_pages", 0444,
>
> --
> b4 0.10.1
