On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:42:17AM +0800, Weijie Yang wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Minchan Kim <minc...@kernel.org> 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))
/* Yes, it's stable so we should free it */
zswap_entry_put(tree, entry);
/*
* Whether it would be freed by invalidation or writeback, it doesn't
* matter. Important thing is that it will be freed so there
* is no point to return -EAGAIN.
*/
spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
return 0;
> }
> spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
> - if (refcount <= 0) {
> - /* free the entry */
> - zswap_free_entry(tree, entry);
> - return 0;
> - }
> - return -EAGAIN;
> +
> + goto end;
>
> fail:
> spin_lock(&tree->lock);
> - zswap_entry_put(entry);
> + refcount = zswap_entry_put(tree, entry);
> spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
> - return ret;
> +
> +end:
> + if (refcount <= 0)
> + return 0;
> + else
> + return -EAGAIN;
> }
>
> /*********************************
> @@ -677,10 +688,8 @@ static int zswap_frontswap_store(unsigned type, pgoff_t
> offset,
> zswap_duplicate_entry++;
> /* remove from rbtree */
> rb_erase(&dupentry->rbnode, &tree->rbroot);
> - if (!zswap_entry_put(dupentry)) {
> - /* free */
> - zswap_free_entry(tree, dupentry);
> - }
> + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&dupentry->rbnode);
> + zswap_entry_put(tree, dupentry);
> }
> } while (ret == -EEXIST);
> spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
> @@ -713,13 +722,12 @@ static int zswap_frontswap_load(unsigned type, pgoff_t
> offset,
>
> /* find */
> spin_lock(&tree->lock);
> - entry = zswap_rb_search(&tree->rbroot, offset);
> + entry = zswap_entry_find_get(&tree->rbroot, offset);
> if (!entry) {
> /* entry was written back */
> spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
> return -1;
> }
> - zswap_entry_get(entry);
> spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
>
> /* decompress */
> @@ -734,22 +742,9 @@ static int zswap_frontswap_load(unsigned type, pgoff_t
> offset,
> BUG_ON(ret);
>
> spin_lock(&tree->lock);
> - refcount = zswap_entry_put(entry);
> - if (likely(refcount)) {
> - spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
> - return 0;
> - }
> + zswap_entry_put(tree, entry);
> spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
>
> - /*
> - * We don't have to unlink from the rbtree because
> - * zswap_writeback_entry() or zswap_frontswap_invalidate page()
> - * has already done this for us if we are the last reference.
> - */
> - /* free */
> -
> - zswap_free_entry(tree, entry);
> -
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -771,19 +766,12 @@ static void zswap_frontswap_invalidate_page(unsigned
> type, pgoff_t offset)
>
> /* remove from rbtree */
> rb_erase(&entry->rbnode, &tree->rbroot);
> + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&entry->rbnode);
>
> /* drop the initial reference from entry creation */
> - refcount = zswap_entry_put(entry);
> + zswap_entry_put(tree, entry);
>
> spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
> -
> - if (refcount) {
> - /* writeback in progress, writeback will free */
> - return;
> - }
> -
> - /* free */
> - zswap_free_entry(tree, entry);
> }
>
> /* frees all zswap entries for the given swap type */
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majord...@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"d...@kvack.org";> em...@kvack.org </a>
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
