Hi Hyeonggon,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 10:55 AM
> To: Sridhar, Kanchana P <kanchana.p.sridhar@xxxxxxxxx>; Johannes Weiner
> <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx>; Nhat
> Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx>; Chengming Zhou
> <chengming.zhou@xxxxxxxxx>; Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-
> foundation.org>
> Cc: linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx; Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@xxxxxxxxx>;
> stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [PATCH v2 mm-hotfixes] mm/zswap: fix inconsistent charging when
> zswap_store_page() fails
>
> Commit b7c0ccdfbafd ("mm: zswap: support large folios in zswap_store()")
> skips charging any zswapped base pages when it failed to zswap the entire
> folio.
>
> However, when some base pages are zswapped but it failed to zswap
> the entire folio, the zswap operation is rolled back.
> When freeing zswap entries for those pages, zswap_entry_free() uncharges
> the pages that were not previously charged, causing zswap charging to
> become inconsistent.
>
> This inconsistency triggers two warnings with following steps:
> # On a machine with 64GiB of RAM and 36GiB of zswap
> $ stress-ng --bigheap 2 # wait until the OOM-killer kills stress-ng
> $ sudo reboot
>
> Two warnings are:
> in mm/memcontrol.c:163, function obj_cgroup_release():
> WARN_ON_ONCE(nr_bytes & (PAGE_SIZE - 1));
>
> in mm/page_counter.c:60, function page_counter_cancel():
> if (WARN_ONCE(new < 0, "page_counter underflow: %ld
> nr_pages=%lu\n",
> new, nr_pages))
>
> While objcg events should only be accounted for when the entire folio is
> zswapped, objcg charging should be performed regardlessly.
> Fix accordingly.
>
> After resolving the inconsistency, these warnings disappear.
>
> Fixes: b7c0ccdfbafd ("mm: zswap: support large folios in zswap_store()")
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> v1->v2:
>
> Fixed objcg events being accounted for on zswap failure.
>
> Fixed the incorrect description. I misunderstood that the base pages are
> going to be stored in zswap, but their zswap entries are freed immediately.
>
> Added a comment on why it charges pages that are going to be removed
> from zswap.
>
> mm/zswap.c | 14 ++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c
> index 6504174fbc6a..10b30ac46deb 100644
> --- a/mm/zswap.c
> +++ b/mm/zswap.c
> @@ -1568,20 +1568,26 @@ bool zswap_store(struct folio *folio)
>
> bytes = zswap_store_page(page, objcg, pool);
> if (bytes < 0)
> - goto put_pool;
> + goto charge_zswap;
> compressed_bytes += bytes;
> }
>
> - if (objcg) {
> - obj_cgroup_charge_zswap(objcg, compressed_bytes);
> + if (objcg)
> count_objcg_events(objcg, ZSWPOUT, nr_pages);
> - }
>
> atomic_long_add(nr_pages, &zswap_stored_pages);
> count_vm_events(ZSWPOUT, nr_pages);
>
> ret = true;
>
> +charge_zswap:
> + /*
> + * Charge zswapped pages even when it failed to zswap the entire
> folio,
> + * because zswap_entry_free() will uncharge them anyway.
> + * Otherwise zswap charging will become inconsistent.
> + */
> + if (objcg)
> + obj_cgroup_charge_zswap(objcg, compressed_bytes);
Thanks for finding this bug! I am thinking it might make sense to charge
and increment the zswap_stored_pages counter in zswap_store_page().
Something like:
diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c
index b84c20d889b1..fd2a72598a8a 100644
--- a/mm/zswap.c
+++ b/mm/zswap.c
@@ -1504,11 +1504,14 @@ static ssize_t zswap_store_page(struct page *page,
entry->pool = pool;
entry->swpentry = page_swpentry;
entry->objcg = objcg;
+ if (objcg)
+ obj_cgroup_charge_zswap(objcg, entry->length);
entry->referenced = true;
if (entry->length) {
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&entry->lru);
zswap_lru_add(&zswap_list_lru, entry);
}
+ atomic_long_inc(&zswap_stored_pages);
return entry->length;
@@ -1526,7 +1529,6 @@ bool zswap_store(struct folio *folio)
struct obj_cgroup *objcg = NULL;
struct mem_cgroup *memcg = NULL;
struct zswap_pool *pool;
- size_t compressed_bytes = 0;
bool ret = false;
long index;
@@ -1569,15 +1571,11 @@ bool zswap_store(struct folio *folio)
bytes = zswap_store_page(page, objcg, pool);
if (bytes < 0)
goto put_pool;
- compressed_bytes += bytes;
}
- if (objcg) {
- obj_cgroup_charge_zswap(objcg, compressed_bytes);
+ if (objcg)
count_objcg_events(objcg, ZSWPOUT, nr_pages);
- }
- atomic_long_add(nr_pages, &zswap_stored_pages);
count_vm_events(ZSWPOUT, nr_pages);
ret = true;
What do you think?
Yosry, Nhat, Johannes, please let me know if this would be a cleaner
approach. If so, I don't think we would be losing a lot of performance
by not doing the one-time charge per folio, but please let me know
your thoughts as well.
Thanks,
Kanchana
> put_pool:
> zswap_pool_put(pool);
> put_objcg:
> --
> 2.47.1
