On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 10:03 AM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 6:55 PM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 05:14:37PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > > [..] > > > > > > I don't think we want to stop doing exclusive loads in zswap due to this > > > > > > interaction with zram, which shouldn't be common. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can solve this by just writing the folio back to zswap upon > > > > > > failure as I mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > Instead of storing again, can we avoid invalidating the entry in the > > > > > first place if the load is not "exclusive"? > > > > > > > > > > The reason for exclusive loads is that the ownership is transferred to > > > > > the swapcache, so there is no point in keeping our copy. With an > > > > > optimistic read that doesn't transfer ownership, this doesn't > > > > > apply. And we can easily tell inside zswap_load() if we're dealing > > > > > with a swapcache read or not by testing the folio. > > > > > > > > > > The synchronous read already has to pin the swp_entry_t to be safe, > > > > > using swapcache_prepare(). That blocks __read_swap_cache_async() which > > > > > means no other (exclusive) loads and no invalidates can occur. > > > > > > > > > > The zswap entry is freed during the regular swap_free() path, which > > > > > the sync fault calls on success. Otherwise we keep it. > > > > > > > > I thought about this, but I was particularly worried about the need to > > > > bring back the refcount that was removed when we switched to only > > > > supporting exclusive loads: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240201-b4-zswap-invalidate-entry-v2-6-99d4084260a0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > > > It seems to be that we don't need it, because swap_free() will free > > > > the entry as you mentioned before anyone else has the chance to load > > > > it or invalidate it. Writeback used to grab a reference as well, but > > > > it removes the entry from the tree anyway and takes full ownership of > > > > it then frees it, so that should be okay. > > > > > > > > It makes me nervous though to be honest. For example, not long ago > > > > swap_free() didn't call zswap_invalidate() directly (used to happen to > > > > swap slots cache draining). Without it, a subsequent load could race > > > > with writeback without refcount protection, right? We would need to > > > > make sure to backport 0827a1fb143f ("mm/zswap: invalidate zswap entry > > > > when swap entry free") with the fix to stable for instance. > > > > > > > > I can't find a problem with your diff, but it just makes me nervous to > > > > have non-exclusive loads without a refcount. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c > > > > > index 535c907345e0..686364a6dd86 100644 > > > > > --- a/mm/zswap.c > > > > > +++ b/mm/zswap.c > > > > > @@ -1622,6 +1622,7 @@ bool zswap_load(struct folio *folio) > > > > > swp_entry_t swp = folio->swap; > > > > > pgoff_t offset = swp_offset(swp); > > > > > struct page *page = &folio->page; > > > > > + bool swapcache = folio_test_swapcache(folio); > > > > > struct zswap_tree *tree = swap_zswap_tree(swp); > > > > > struct zswap_entry *entry; > > > > > u8 *dst; > > > > > @@ -1634,7 +1635,8 @@ bool zswap_load(struct folio *folio) > > > > > spin_unlock(&tree->lock); > > > > > return false; > > > > > } > > > > > - zswap_rb_erase(&tree->rbroot, entry); > > > > > + if (swapcache) > > > > > + zswap_rb_erase(&tree->rbroot, entry); > > > > > > On second thought, if we don't remove the entry from the tree here, > > > writeback could free the entry from under us after we drop the lock > > > here, right? > > > > The sync-swapin does swapcache_prepare() and holds SWAP_HAS_CACHE, so > > racing writeback would loop on the -EEXIST in __read_swap_cache_async(). > > (Or, if writeback wins the race, sync-swapin fails on swapcache_prepare() > > instead and bails on the fault.) > > > > This isn't coincidental. The sync-swapin needs to, and does, serialize > > against the swap entry moving into swapcache or being invalidated for > > it to be safe. Which is the same requirement that zswap ops have. > > You are right. Even if swap_free() isn't called under SWAP_HAS_CACHE's > protection, a subsequent load will also be protected by SWAP_HAS_CACHE > (whether it's swapped in with sync swapin or throught the swapcache) > -- so it would be protected against writeback as well. Now it seems > like we may have been able to drop the refcount even without exclusive > loads..? > > Anyway, I think your fix is sound. Zhongkun, do you mind confirming > that the diff Johannes sent fixes the problem for you? OK， I will try it and come back in a few hours. Thanks for the solution, it sounds great.
