On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 3:46 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 03:25:25AM +0800, Kairui Song wrote:
> > if (xa_empty(tree))
> > return;
> >
> > - entry = xa_erase(tree, offset);
> > - if (entry)
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + entry = xas_load(&xas);
> > + if (entry) {
>
> You should call xas_reset() here. And I'm not sure it's a great idea to
> spin waiting for the xa lock while holding the RCU read lock? Probably
> not awful but I could easily be wrong.
Thanks for the review. I thought about it, that could cancel this optimization.
Oh, and there is a thing I forgot to mention (maybe I should add some
comments about it?). If xas_load found an entry, that entry must be
pinned by HAS_CACHE or swap slot count right now, and one entry can
only be freed once.
So it should be safe here?
This might be a little fragile though, maybe this optimization can
better be done after some zswap invalidation path cleanup.
>
> > + xas_lock(&xas);
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(xas_reload(&xas) != entry);
> > + xas_store(&xas, NULL);
> > + xas_unlock(&xas);
> > zswap_entry_free(entry);
> > + }
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > }
> >
> > int zswap_swapon(int type, unsigned long nr_pages)
> > --
> > 2.47.0
> >
> >
>
