Hi Andrew,
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 02:17:10PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:01:02 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Swap subsystem does lazy swap slot free with expecting the page
> > would be swapped out again so we can avoid unnecessary write.
>
> Is that correct? How can it save a write?
Correct.
The add_to_swap makes the page dirty and we must pageout only if the page is
dirty. If a anon page is already charged into swapcache, we skip writeout
the page in shrink_page_list, then just remove the page from swapcache and
free it by __remove_mapping.
I did received same question multiple time so it would be good idea to
write down it in vmscan.c somewhere.
>
> > But the problem in in-memory swap(ex, zram) is that it consumes
> > memory space until vm_swap_full(ie, used half of all of swap device)
> > condition meet. It could be bad if we use multiple swap device,
> > small in-memory swap and big storage swap or in-memory swap alone.
> >
> > This patch makes swap subsystem free swap slot as soon as swap-read
> > is completed and make the swapcache page dirty so the page should
> > be written out the swap device to reclaim it.
> > It means we never lose it.
>
> >From my reading of the patch, that isn't how it works? It changed
> end_swap_bio_read() to call zram_slot_free_notify(), which appears to
> free the underlying compressed page. I have a feeling I'm hopelessly
> confused.
You understand right totally.
Selecting swap slot in my description was totally miss.
Need to rewrite the description.
>
> > --- a/mm/page_io.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_io.c
> > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
> > #include <linux/buffer_head.h>
> > #include <linux/writeback.h>
> > #include <linux/frontswap.h>
> > +#include <linux/blkdev.h>
> > #include <asm/pgtable.h>
> >
> > static struct bio *get_swap_bio(gfp_t gfp_flags,
> > @@ -81,8 +82,30 @@ void end_swap_bio_read(struct bio *bio, int err)
> > iminor(bio->bi_bdev->bd_inode),
> > (unsigned long long)bio->bi_sector);
> > } else {
> > + /*
> > + * There is no reason to keep both uncompressed data and
> > + * compressed data in memory.
> > + */
> > + struct swap_info_struct *sis;
> > +
> > SetPageUptodate(page);
> > + sis = page_swap_info(page);
> > + if (sis->flags & SWP_BLKDEV) {
> > + struct gendisk *disk = sis->bdev->bd_disk;
> > + if (disk->fops->swap_slot_free_notify) {
> > + swp_entry_t entry;
> > + unsigned long offset;
> > +
> > + entry.val = page_private(page);
> > + offset = swp_offset(entry);
> > +
> > + SetPageDirty(page);
> > + disk->fops->swap_slot_free_notify(sis->bdev,
> > + offset);
> > + }
> > + }
> > }
> > +
> > unlock_page(page);
> > bio_put(bio);
>
> The new code is wasted space if CONFIG_BLOCK=n, yes?
CONFIG_SWAP is already dependent on CONFIG_BLOCK.
>
> Also, what's up with the SWP_BLKDEV test? zram doesn't support
> SWP_FILE? Why on earth not?
>
> Putting swap_slot_free_notify() into block_device_operations seems
> rather wrong. It precludes zram-over-swapfiles for all time and means
> that other subsystems cannot get notifications for swap slot freeing
> for swapfile-backed swap.
Zram is just pseudo-block device so anyone can format it with any FSes
and swapon a file. In such case, he can't get a benefit from
swap_slot_free_notify. But I think it's not a severe problem because
there is no reason to use a file-swap on zram. If anyone want to use it,
I'd like to know the reason. If it's reasonable, we have to rethink a
wheel and it's another story, IMHO.
>
> --
> 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>
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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>