On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Weijie Yang <weijie.yang.kh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Bob Liu <lliubbo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:42:17AM +0800, Weijie Yang wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 04:21:49PM +0800, Weijie Yang wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Modify:
>>>> > > - check the refcount in fail path, free memory if it is not referenced.
>>>> >
>>>> > Hmm, I don't like this because zswap refcount routine is already mess for me.
>>>> > I'm not sure why it was designed from the beginning. I hope we should fix it first.
>>>> >
>>>> > 1. zswap_rb_serach could include zswap_entry_get semantic if it founds a entry from
>>>> > the tree. Of course, we should ranme it as find_get_zswap_entry like find_get_page.
>>>> > 2. zswap_entry_put could hide resource free function like zswap_free_entry so that
>>>> > all of caller can use it easily following pattern.
>>>> >
>>>> > find_get_zswap_entry
>>>> > ...
>>>> > ...
>>>> > zswap_entry_put
>>>> >
>>>> > Of course, zswap_entry_put have to check the entry is in the tree or not
>>>> > so if someone already removes it from the tree, it should avoid double remove.
>>>> >
>>>> > One of the concern I can think is that approach extends critical section
>>>> > but I think it would be no problem because more bottleneck would be [de]compress
>>>> > functions. If it were really problem, we can mitigate a problem with moving
>>>> > unnecessary functions out of zswap_free_entry because it seem to be rather
>>>> > over-enginnering.
>>>>
>>>> I refactor the zswap refcount routine according to Minchan's idea.
>>>> Here is the new patch, Any suggestion is welcomed.
>>>>
>>>> To Seth and Bob, would you please review it again?
>>>
>>> Yeah, Seth, Bob. You guys are right persons to review this because this
>>> scheme was suggested by me who is biased so it couldn't be a fair. ;-)
>>> But anyway, I will review code itself.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> mm/zswap.c | 116
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c
>>>> old mode 100644
>>>> new mode 100755
>>>> index deda2b6..bd04910
>>>> --- a/mm/zswap.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/zswap.c
>>>> @@ -217,6 +217,7 @@ static struct zswap_entry *zswap_entry_cache_alloc(gfp_t gfp)
>>>> if (!entry)
>>>> return NULL;
>>>> entry->refcount = 1;
>>>> + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&entry->rbnode);
>>>> return entry;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> @@ -232,10 +233,20 @@ static void zswap_entry_get(struct zswap_entry *entry)
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> /* caller must hold the tree lock */
>>>> -static int zswap_entry_put(struct zswap_entry *entry)
>>>> +static int zswap_entry_put(struct zswap_tree *tree, struct zswap_entry *entry)
>>>
>>> Why should we have return value? If we really need it, it mitigates
>>> get/put semantic's whole point so I'd like to just return void.
>>>
>>> Let me see.
>>>
>>>> {
>>>> - entry->refcount--;
>>>> - return entry->refcount;
>>>> + int refcount = --entry->refcount;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (refcount <= 0) {
>>>
>>> Hmm, I don't like minus refcount, really.
>>> I hope we could do following as
>>>
>>> BUG_ON(refcount < 0);
>>> if (refcount == 0) {
>>> ...
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> + if (!RB_EMPTY_NODE(&entry->rbnode)) {
>>>> + rb_erase(&entry->rbnode, &tree->rbroot);
>>>> + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&entry->rbnode);
>>>
>>> Minor,
>>> You could make new function zswap_rb_del or zswap_rb_remove which detach the node
>>> from rb tree and clear node because we have already zswap_rb_insert.
>>>
>>>
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + zswap_free_entry(tree, entry);
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + return refcount;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> /*********************************
>>>> @@ -258,6 +269,17 @@ static struct zswap_entry *zswap_rb_search(struct rb_root *root, pgoff_t offset)
>>>> return NULL;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>
>>> Add function description.
>>>
>>>> +static struct zswap_entry *zswap_entry_find_get(struct rb_root *root, pgoff_t offset)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct zswap_entry *entry = NULL;
>>>> +
>>>> + entry = zswap_rb_search(root, offset);
>>>> + if (entry)
>>>> + zswap_entry_get(entry);
>>>> +
>>>> + return entry;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> /*
>>>> * In the case that a entry with the same offset is found, a pointer to
>>>> * the existing entry is stored in dupentry and the function returns -EEXIST
>>>> @@ -387,7 +409,7 @@ static void zswap_free_entry(struct zswap_tree *tree, struct zswap_entry *entry)
>>>> enum zswap_get_swap_ret {
>>>> ZSWAP_SWAPCACHE_NEW,
>>>> ZSWAP_SWAPCACHE_EXIST,
>>>> - ZSWAP_SWAPCACHE_NOMEM
>>>> + ZSWAP_SWAPCACHE_FAIL,
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> @@ -401,9 +423,9 @@ enum zswap_get_swap_ret {
>>>> * added to the swap cache, and returned in retpage.
>>>> *
>>>> * If success, the swap cache page is returned in retpage
>>>> - * Returns 0 if page was already in the swap cache, page is not locked
>>>> - * Returns 1 if the new page needs to be populated, page is locked
>>>> - * Returns <0 on error
>>>> + * Returns ZSWAP_SWAPCACHE_EXIST if page was already in the swap cache
>>>> + * Returns ZSWAP_SWAPCACHE_NEW if the new page needs to be populated, page is locked
>>>> + * Returns ZSWAP_SWAPCACHE_FAIL on error
>>>> */
>>>> static int zswap_get_swap_cache_page(swp_entry_t entry,
>>>> struct page **retpage)
>>>> @@ -475,7 +497,7 @@ static int zswap_get_swap_cache_page(swp_entry_t entry,
>>>> if (new_page)
>>>> page_cache_release(new_page);
>>>> if (!found_page)
>>>> - return ZSWAP_SWAPCACHE_NOMEM;
>>>> + return ZSWAP_SWAPCACHE_FAIL;
>>>> *retpage = found_page;
>>>> return ZSWAP_SWAPCACHE_EXIST;
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -517,23 +539,22 @@ static int zswap_writeback_entry(struct zbud_pool *pool, unsigned long handle)
>>>>
>>>> /* find and ref zswap entry */
>>>> spin_lock(&tree->lock);
>>>> - entry = zswap_rb_search(&tree->rbroot, offset);
>>>> + entry = zswap_entry_find_get(&tree->rbroot, offset);
>>>> if (!entry) {
>>>> /* entry was invalidated */
>>>> spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> - zswap_entry_get(entry);
>>>> spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
>>>> BUG_ON(offset != entry->offset);
>>>>
>>>> /* try to allocate swap cache page */
>>>> switch (zswap_get_swap_cache_page(swpentry, &page)) {
>>>> - case ZSWAP_SWAPCACHE_NOMEM: /* no memory */
>>>> + case ZSWAP_SWAPCACHE_FAIL: /* no memory or invalidate happened */
>>>> ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>> goto fail;
>>>>
>>>> - case ZSWAP_SWAPCACHE_EXIST: /* page is unlocked */
>>>> + case ZSWAP_SWAPCACHE_EXIST:
>>>
>>> Why did you remove comment?
>>>
>>>> /* page is already in the swap cache, ignore for now */
>>>> page_cache_release(page);
>>>> ret = -EEXIST;
>>>> @@ -562,38 +583,28 @@ static int zswap_writeback_entry(struct zbud_pool *pool, unsigned long handle)
>>>> zswap_written_back_pages++;
>>>>
>>>> spin_lock(&tree->lock);
>>>> -
>>>> /* drop local reference */
>>>> - zswap_entry_put(entry);
>>>> + refcount = zswap_entry_put(tree, entry);
>>>> /* drop the initial reference from entry creation */
>>>> - refcount = zswap_entry_put(entry);
>>>> -
>>>> - /*
>>>> - * There are three possible values for refcount here:
>>>> - * (1) refcount is 1, load is in progress, unlink from rbtree,
>>>> - * load will free
>>>> - * (2) refcount is 0, (normal case) entry is valid,
>>>> - * remove from rbtree and free entry
>>>> - * (3) refcount is -1, invalidate happened during writeback,
>>>> - * free entry
>>>> - */
>>>> - if (refcount >= 0) {
>>>> - /* no invalidate yet, remove from rbtree */
>>>> + if (refcount > 0) {
>>>> rb_erase(&entry->rbnode, &tree->rbroot);
>>>> + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&entry->rbnode);
>>>> + refcount = zswap_entry_put(tree, entry);
>>>
>>> Now, I see why you need return in zswap_entry_put but let's consider again
>>> because it's really mess to me and it hurts get/put semantic a lot so
>>> How about this?
>>>
>>> spin_lock(&tree->lock);
>>> /* drop local reference */
>>> zswap_entry_put(tree, entry);
>>> /*
>>> * In here, we want to free entry but invalidation may free earlier
>>> * under us so that we should check it again
>>> */
>>> if (entry == zswap_rb_search(&tree->rb_root, offset))
>>
>> Then where is the place unlink entry from rbtree if load was in progress ?
>
> zswap_entry_put() have the unlink handle logic
>
I see. Then how about use if (!RB_EMPTY_NODE(&entry->rbnode)) to
replace rbtree searching?
>> And in the following fail path, return value from zswap_entry_put() is
>> also used.
>
> It is okay even if we return -EAGAIN in the fail path
>
--
Regards,
--Bob
--
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>