On 03/07/2013 01:00 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 03/06/2013 07:52 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
>> +static int __zswap_cpu_notifier(unsigned long action, unsigned long cpu)
>> +{
>> + struct crypto_comp *tfm;
>> + u8 *dst;
>> +
>> + switch (action) {
>> + case CPU_UP_PREPARE:
>> + tfm = crypto_alloc_comp(zswap_compressor, 0, 0);
>> + if (IS_ERR(tfm)) {
>> + pr_err("can't allocate compressor transform\n");
>> + return NOTIFY_BAD;
>> + }
>> + *per_cpu_ptr(zswap_comp_pcpu_tfms, cpu) = tfm;
>> + dst = (u8 *)__get_free_pages(GFP_KERNEL, 1);
>
> Are there some alignment requirements for 'dst'? If not, why not use
> kmalloc()? I think kmalloc() should always be used where possible since
> slab debugging is so useful compared to what we can do with raw
> buddy-allocated pages.
Sounds good to me.
>
> Where does the order-1 requirement come from by the way?
Unsafe LZO compression
(http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/95460)
Forgot to put in the comment for v7.
>
> ...
>> +**********************************/
>> +/* attempts to compress and store an single page */
>> +static int zswap_frontswap_store(unsigned type, pgoff_t offset,
>> + struct page *page)
>> +{
> ...
>> + /* store */
>> + handle = zs_malloc(tree->pool, dlen,
>> + __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_HIGHMEM | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC |
>> + __GFP_NOWARN);
>> + if (!handle) {
>> + zswap_reject_zsmalloc_fail++;
>> + ret = -ENOMEM;
>> + goto putcpu;
>> + }
>> +
>
> I think there needs to at least be some strong comments in here about
> why you're doing this kind of allocation. From some IRC discussion, it
> seems like you found some pathological case where zswap wasn't helping
> make reclaim progress and ended up draining the reserve pools and you
> did this to avoid draining the reserve pools.
I'm currently doing some tests with fewer zsmalloc class sizes and
removing __GFP_NOMEMALLOC to see the effect.
>
> I think the lack of progress doing reclaim is really the root cause you
> should be going after here instead of just working around the symptom.
>
>> +/* NOTE: this is called in atomic context from swapon and must not sleep */
>> +static void zswap_frontswap_init(unsigned type)
>> +{
>> + struct zswap_tree *tree;
>> +
>> + tree = kzalloc(sizeof(struct zswap_tree), GFP_NOWAIT);
>> + if (!tree)
>> + goto err;
>> + tree->pool = zs_create_pool(GFP_NOWAIT, &zswap_zs_ops);
>> + if (!tree->pool)
>> + goto freetree;
>> + tree->rbroot = RB_ROOT;
>> + spin_lock_init(&tree->lock);
>> + zswap_trees[type] = tree;
>> + return;
>> +
>> +freetree:
>> + kfree(tree);
>> +err:
>> + pr_err("alloc failed, zswap disabled for swap type %d\n", type);
>> +}
>
> How large are these allocations? Why are you doing GFP_NOWAIT instead
> of GFP_ATOMIC? This seems like the kind of thing that you'd _want_ to
> be able to dip in to the reserves for.
Not large. Would almost never make a difference, but you're right;
should use GFP_ATOMIC.
Thanks,
Seth
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>