From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-oi1-f179.google.com (mail-oi1-f179.google.com [209.85.167.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C0433B7B8B for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2026 15:48:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.179 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772812091; cv=none; b=XuWGC56j4+iyfWOI7hK+NOqADprVletIf54IyYKR3eszgjMD6pX3F63PzbAGRn/mOouIm/INUaJtfch/ptQJKt708WdgOKoSx7X/5zPucQkxHdltf2cMtS8zAODYXhC7N0VORt9scuoguSybDv+7KDwwSor/02JQRcCzwV7WpD4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772812091; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QiQtrjw9eIMb2cuYIUCH/KxXjh1LseTI/2iLzYitHWU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=bPrJeeWz7pQwG8VRg8MhWB+eqMyQvcaDZo4jx5QSTqLC3AlIzwtFHQDLBaoTfLMnbZCJ1ICAKaIKKCDSPYqqX0mBIp1TBC4CO/+nEfFCLSKtCv93osOAbxLTPQRGaB16sgmFN9UCXFKqvluG6SOaM3P1WRXfJz5C2Ev0bA5RNJs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=X2+/fxbK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.179 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="X2+/fxbK" Received: by mail-oi1-f179.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-45f194e9a98so3441222b6e.3 for ; Fri, 06 Mar 2026 07:48:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1772812089; x=1773416889; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Ltlmh5+xfasabBt3G7wfvJiHvUvttPKwWWOjoNqhRlQ=; b=X2+/fxbKHtxUbrCFdv/jPdLDloIXufoeipQcQY2hOv3LiDXMJVg6TeBqKuKiI5HJ6m aId4KbWpM5rnJ6gDv1tAdfAKK1zG/0gfRrEZWmXcX8VGY5LI/v+sGwgaTp33TbG+EEzY 231dzWFMe80B8SriVeKweH6KdpcSOixSLUlkfIymEq92IN9mOp/hPmZAx2ICU1P+QVqj 4bKfMQyUEw6ajJUrD5fNnaqtm2SZ40mYFuMtlq3kpgOe1JzPyOVqs27iZT8Dk/PyR//o 8AGePpM2h7ThXXo9q/PebPd++w5EkcnbOvdAzPfjuj7LSFU2hVdLh/MK26ObyY5Yig4A jkJQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1772812089; x=1773416889; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Ltlmh5+xfasabBt3G7wfvJiHvUvttPKwWWOjoNqhRlQ=; b=VxBNY5y3YtnbFiOnFnewU1cffzAL0DaKAOrBYn5XfFdVxz/f6ExwI9HnBSl5keLeH+ mgsQS3fMVo3MMxJE/w8TXIUJEafdWtorAWegZ9HMgXETICDeUSmLnXn+HumIy+MkAqbz BiBFtwPjTMTMrELJHn0A8EUtd2n+gsNk+CQThYiftHi8i6LHpkSviY4QgKTb7/7MvCRq epDIyQD0UIfkyyR/7vwTXdh4AarXJzy1tJ2Y+T/xtocR0QGX2MZt0pyk6rA7VBiJUgAT roX+KWsz7XC2XG0qkllYo9SBEQDDtkDXEgw+v9w7vhkw1dzilhCoEv+RccK8FCz5yhd+ m/gA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXoww36f1khtLbonMnNePMSnj7aC0/Q75HPXnKHoa28f1z5xBvhhLt+vLHOJa5MQCbS25zK6U9E/uSsbg==@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwO9CPCCm9uzJQzQmkEhlN5/k6nj2uBwJ6A47Rou4uBmnSpt+0Y vV277yuiz7awh/IEeuORohrBEnYh3qtQRdxMQmXW+UFOguM28T538mOl X-Gm-Gg: ATEYQzzVtpSpH53hVZDX2X9cnx3qolNcJDShe5OE35DsnmLPuP76UaglhppvmJVNusR gJ/OG7/TAAMo9W6XxDK5JcLTxiDq2RLGPjUPF5CNlqmBF3xhKqtMEwZ5KYlPOkkztgXrZb5IGI6 ihV7/sNdXIJ89NaD7gq67VBOAUH2riCNSA2UoBtt+kjaSb5QUgyqWSXlYD4BGZUivyGNeDnmldI nmpHQ86ujCPM0n2srMmSbRXzJt4Z2uVUrABJ5H40NjLFY16MLbKqBFsb4Nxa/2VfpBlxSKvDkpI WO5HTlnKccL+res/549oEg6h+nX1qH0kTihrwAKrQA34ZiKQaCxjhQVgioR8azagZh2mc+N4JAq kicSooqDy2GBH9pLPJ920UgstuVrYz9j/1wZE6orVJuFvpXRXuiqtxBsHnLAGBetYgeh0MMzNXI rXQfhAn1Hd55ib0SJqfWdMqg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:4f08:b0:43f:5c61:448c with SMTP id 5614622812f47-466dcb0c3bemr1240922b6e.39.1772812088834; Fri, 06 Mar 2026 07:48:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2a03:2880:10ff:52::]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 586e51a60fabf-416e68369bcsm1683173fac.15.2026.03.06.07.48.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 06 Mar 2026 07:48:08 -0800 (PST) From: Joshua Hahn To: Harry Yoo Cc: Minchan Kim , Sergey Senozhatsky , Johannes Weiner , Jens Axboe , Yosry Ahmed , Nhat Pham , Nhat Pham , Chengming Zhou , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] mm/zsmalloc: Introduce objcgs pointer in struct zpdesc Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2026 07:48:06 -0800 Message-ID: <20260306154806.187506-1-joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 12:49:44 +0900 Harry Yoo wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 11:29:26AM -0800, Joshua Hahn wrote: > > Introduce an array of struct obj_cgroup pointers to zpdesc to keep track > > of compressed objects' memcg ownership. > > > > The 8 bytes required to add the array in struct zpdesc brings its size > > up from 56 bytes to 64 bytes. However, in the current implementation, > > struct zpdesc lays on top of struct page[1]. This allows the increased > > size to remain invisible to the outside, since 64 bytes are used for > > struct zpdesc anyways. > > > > The newly added obj_cgroup array pointer overlays page->memcg_data, > > which causes problems for functions that try to perform page charging by > > checking the zeroness of page->memcg_data. To make sure that the > > backing zpdesc's obj_cgroup ** is not interpreted as a mem_cgroup *, > > follow SLUB's lead and use the MEMCG_DATA_OBJEXTS bit to tag the pointer. > > > > Consumers of zsmalloc that do not perform memcg accounting (i.e. zram) > > are completely unaffected by this patch, as the array to track the > > obj_cgroup pointers are only allocated in the zswap path. > > > > This patch temporarily increases the memory used by zswap by 8 bytes > > per zswap_entry, since the obj_cgroup pointer is duplicated in the > > zpdesc and in zswap_entry. In the following patches, we will redirect > > memory charging operations to use the zpdesc's obj_cgroup instead, and > > remove the pointer from zswap_entry. This will leave no net memory usage > > increase for both zram and zswap. > > > > In this patch, allocate / free the objcg pointer array for the zswap > > path, and handle partial object migration and full zpdesc migration. > > > > [1] In the (near) future, struct zpdesc may no longer overlay struct > > page as we shift towards using memdescs. When this happens, the size > > increase of struct zpdesc will no longer free. With that said, the > > difference can be kept minimal. > > > > All the changes that are being implemented are currently guarded under > > CONFIG_MEMCG. We can optionally minimize the impact on zram users by > > guarding these changes in CONFIG_MEMCG && CONFIG_ZSWAP as well. > > > > Suggested-by: Johannes Weiner > > Signed-off-by: Joshua Hahn > > --- > > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 10 ++--- > > include/linux/zsmalloc.h | 2 +- > > mm/zpdesc.h | 25 +++++++++++- > > mm/zsmalloc.c | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > > mm/zswap.c | 2 +- > > 5 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > > > @@ -893,6 +898,43 @@ static void init_zspage(struct size_class *class, struct zspage *zspage) > > set_freeobj(zspage, 0); > > } > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG > > +static bool alloc_zspage_objcgs(struct size_class *class, gfp_t gfp, > > + struct zpdesc *zpdescs[]) > > +{ > > + /* > > + * Add 2 to objcgs_per_zpdesc to account for partial objs that may be > > + * stored at the beginning or end of the zpdesc. > > + */ > > + int objcgs_per_zpdesc = (PAGE_SIZE / class->size) + 2; > > + int i; > > + struct obj_cgroup **objcgs; > > Just wondering, perhaps it makes more sense to have an array of > objcg pointers for each zspage (of size objs_per_zspage)? Hi Harry! I hope you are doing well, thanks for taking a look : -) Hmm, I think you might be right. For context, one of the first ideas I had for this patch was to have a per-zspage array, but store it in the first zpdesc. As you can imagine this was not a good idea... (head zpdesc page and tail zpdesc page? ;) ) But! storing it in the zspage struct makes a lot more sense to me. And I think we can actually simplify the migration pathways as well. My immediate response to this was that "subzpdesc swap ins/outs would be difficult" since right now we can just move the pointer, but if we have a per-zspage array, we actually don't have to do any objcgs pointer migration at all. And I think the cross-boundary cases are handled a lot beter by having a per-zpdesc array too. We also don't have to convert the per-zspage obj_idx into a per-zpdesc obj_idx as well, I think if we do this... Let me mull on this for a bit : -) I'll give a shot at implementing it this way, I think it makes sense! Thanks again for taking a look, Harry. Have a great day! Joshua