On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 2:09 PM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 7:08 PM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > zswap_nr_stored is used to maintain the number of stored pages in zswap > > that are not same-filled pages. It is used in zswap_shrinker_count() to > > scale the number of freeable compressed pages by the compression ratio. > > That is, to reduce the amount of writeback from zswap with higher > > compression ratios as the ROI from IO diminishes. > > > > However, the need for this counter is questionable due to two reasons: > > - It is redundant. The value can be inferred from (zswap_stored_pages - > > zswap_same_filled_pages). Ah, I forgot about this. For context, nr_stored was originally a zswap_pool-specific stat, but I think Chengming has pulled it out and converted it into a global pool stat in an earlier patch - yet, globally, we already have zswap_stored_pages that is (mostly) the same counter. Might as well use existing counters (zswap_stored_pages) then, rather than a newly introduced counter. Probably will shave off a couple cycles here and there for the atomic increment/decrement :) > > - When memcgs are enabled, we use memcg_page_state(memcg, > > MEMCG_ZSWAPPED), which includes same-filled pages anyway (i.e. > > equivalent to zswap_stored_pages). This is fine I suppose. I was aware of this weird inaccuracy. However, for the CONFIG_MEMCG case, it was kinda silly to introduce the counter for per-cgroup same filled zswap pages, just for this one purpose, so I decided to accept the inaccuracy. > > > > Use zswap_stored_pages instead in zswap_shrinker_count() to keep things > > consistent whether memcgs are enabled or not, and add a comment about > > the number of freeable pages possibly being scaled down more than it > > should if we have lots of same-filled pages (i.e. inflated compression > > ratio). > > > > Remove nr_zswap_stored and one atomic operation in the store and free > > paths. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Any thoughts on this patch? Should I resend it separately? Might be worth resending it separately, but up to you and Andrew! Reviewed-by: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx>
