On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 12:31:38 -0700 Chris Li <chrisl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Very deep RB tree requires rebalance at times. That
> contributes to the zswap fault latencies. Xarray does not
> need to perform tree rebalance. Replacing RB tree to xarray
> can have some small performance gain.
>
> One small difference is that xarray insert might fail with
> ENOMEM, while RB tree insert does not allocate additional
> memory.
>
> The zswap_entry size will reduce a bit due to removing the
> RB node, which has two pointers and a color field. Xarray
> store the pointer in the xarray tree rather than the
> zswap_entry. Every entry has one pointer from the xarray
> tree. Overall, switching to xarray should save some memory,
> if the swap entries are densely packed.
>
> Notice the zswap_rb_search and zswap_rb_insert always
> followed by zswap_rb_erase. Use xa_erase and xa_store
> directly. That saves one tree lookup as well.
>
> Remove zswap_invalidate_entry due to no need to call
> zswap_rb_erase any more. Use zswap_free_entry instead.
>
> The "struct zswap_tree" has been replaced by "struct xarray".
> The tree spin lock has transferred to the xarray lock.
>
> Run the kernel build testing 10 times for each version, averages:
> (memory.max=2GB, zswap shrinker and writeback enabled,
> one 50GB swapfile, 24 HT core, 32 jobs)
>
So this conflits with Johannes's "mm: zswap: fix data loss on
SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO devices", right in the critical part of
zswap_load(). Naive resolution of that conflict would have resulted in
basically reverting Johannes's fix.
That fix is cc:stable so we do want it to have a clean run in
linux-next before sending it upstream. So I'll drop this patch
("zswap: replace RB tree with xarray") for now. Please redo it against
latest mm-unstable and of course, be sure to preserve Johannes's fix,
thanks.
