On 2024/2/3 06:28, Nhat Pham wrote:
> 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?
Good point!
This oddity is why we need to invalidate it first at the beginning.
But there is another oddity that a stored folio maybe dirtied again,
so that folio needs to be writeback/stored for the second time, in
which case, we still need to invalidate it first to avoid WARN_ON later.
Thanks.
>>
>> 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
