From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB7FEC4332F for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 21:43:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 679A96B0072; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 17:43:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 629C66B0073; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 17:43:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 4F1F56B0074; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 17:43:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F6F26B0072 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 17:43:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin11.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08B271A06BD for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 21:43:11 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80093456982.11.A80DA35 Received: from mail-pg1-f179.google.com (mail-pg1-f179.google.com [209.85.215.179]) by imf27.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A709840005 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 21:43:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-f179.google.com with SMTP id s196so2810170pgs.3 for ; Thu, 03 Nov 2022 14:43:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=rYs5YjcsxCiVwmCqgPu7OxKpxfz22xdOHzRYJ25e2UI=; b=JQ5luRfnCdIYIb+xp0kkSkGiSwEdz36DSN1Ac1SnFm51yAKbSaw1F4c2kIxAV0Feu6 O7wRNYvL2F1N+ulaKuQtGJ6QgmJibgR1ha+hdRiuDSqKktj3ayeZhC/4TP1/zr8OzvIx jM4zZ7v2MS/DJHkQID0bDetgMkcm+qUww2NPTLYpMm/clztfAOYrF9KKiPcX3bfk1x7x eoD3sT7M/4XyY1aTy9bM5BpmXeAoZO4D7dNm9+bhn9KkdT8M14Hd6anjWnnomaYJoaHf xAtiTgWdv9VX9O93JokvG3krUMDrwotzJz4diY9SnTYhsZ8c2j+CqkbGIRRzsRQ7YnUL UwLg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=rYs5YjcsxCiVwmCqgPu7OxKpxfz22xdOHzRYJ25e2UI=; b=iF9CDvO8r3T1kdWKXYIgl0w5YkjGUVcdd7AmQHjlDBdWn3qZOEKMzE0rTMPS56CVB4 sV3UstgKEa7Ei0baOHsH29/kahlIM3FIU77ZcsxZiZVreXUxs9sEs4Pbzy1Vh2h1FerJ XkbFUH4W0i9+Ajo8TI+16Kl3zWMr4ZAx6XQsZyBIZCGn1j/uj2JKneU7hndBEib/72/x MmNOpK4sDvLj87FE9eMCMjdfL8QDZO2JI7+GPivbZkdeuF9Y26cpScHREg4aC8kGFOvp vlkQOpwc7Ls/3NNnvvdL35Wahe74546/f9+K8tGIpgOsUVn0n0lG3ZY3yu6oXRtAN6jX /7cA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1AUJnjX/qVaVnVknDBa0JRVAaYeiOHxTweYZK8BTqLVFx8SfRS crykrIo69mOvFumnvODco10= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6ATdu/CmhX+zKioxa9XGCmS3AsKh51pv/aoWNVfLfM4A3Xh3ajbFsaEL/QgWoqYjWZE25V3A== X-Received: by 2002:a65:49c9:0:b0:462:9ce1:3f58 with SMTP id t9-20020a6549c9000000b004629ce13f58mr27570519pgs.200.1667511789465; Thu, 03 Nov 2022 14:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:211:201:3d65:7dc2:c62a:5d98]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x15-20020a170902ec8f00b0016d5b7fb02esm1176987plg.60.2022.11.03.14.43.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 03 Nov 2022 14:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 14:43:06 -0700 From: Minchan Kim To: Yosry Ahmed Cc: Johannes Weiner , Sergey Senozhatsky , Nhat Pham , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ngupta@vflare.org, sjenning@redhat.com, ddstreet@ieee.org, vitaly.wool@konsulko.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] zsmalloc: Consolidate zs_pool's migrate_lock and size_class's locks Message-ID: References: <20221026200613.1031261-1-nphamcs@gmail.com> <20221026200613.1031261-3-nphamcs@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1667511790; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=rYs5YjcsxCiVwmCqgPu7OxKpxfz22xdOHzRYJ25e2UI=; b=lqJRoj2dXO1vtWS8paJR5RdGFANkXzncQrd1mTcyPjnwf8+F8C0ZPp6QJa0/Ld/pi2GQdR pW0HLXMnPU3Bx47HU4dx9hyxxIEOKhhvUvjOlNTWT3ZtyDAOK5sHL9WXQpGj3EtafMHg5B czsVuqSp+HnKMIS5OlUV24stVKTl1i4= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf27.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=JQ5luRfn; spf=pass (imf27.hostedemail.com: domain of minchan.kim@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.179 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=minchan.kim@gmail.com; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=kernel.org (policy=none) ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1667511790; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=BlXuRixxaZbnbcXhimTRcHTxd7gzdEeCJAx29RZ4zZ9n1vcv2G1g6kVLIgKRGxGQ1VWLeu eX9Jof0TUflofm92GmWf4bB2DY15+iJDL6LHjOA7ne6k23sIvmjHAbSTf0zHXQLmibGs6I CoSwlO9QLYBqQVukuoGxQwPiUEeWLg0= X-Stat-Signature: 8433feautpk6upxkx9xknbwcboy6i9r3 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: A709840005 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam06 X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf27.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=JQ5luRfn; spf=pass (imf27.hostedemail.com: domain of minchan.kim@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.179 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=minchan.kim@gmail.com; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=kernel.org (policy=none) X-HE-Tag: 1667511790-193015 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 01:46:56PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 1:37 PM Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 11:10:47AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > < snip > > > > > > > > > > I am also worry about that LRU stuff should be part of allocator > > > > > > > instead of higher level. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, but that's not a reasonable objection. > > > > > > > > > > > > These patches implement a core feature of being a zswap backend, using > > > > > > standard LRU and locking techniques established by the other backends. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't disagree that it would nicer if zswap had a strong abstraction > > > > > > for backend pages and a generalized LRU. But that is major surgery on > > > > > > a codebase of over 6,500 lines. It's not a reasonable ask to change > > > > > > all that first before implementing a basic feature that's useful now. > > > > > > > > > > With same logic, folks added the LRU logic into their allocators > > > > > without the effort considering moving the LRU into upper layer. > > > > > > > > > > And then trend is still going on since I have seen multiple times > > > > > people are trying to add more allocators. So if it's not a reasonable > > > > > ask to consier, we couldn't stop the trend in the end. > > > > > > > > So there is actually an ongoing effort to do that. Yosry and I have > > > > spent quite some time on coming up with an LRU design that's > > > > independent from compression policy over email and at Plumbers. > > > > > > > > My concern is more about the order of doing things: > > > > > > > > 1. The missing writeback support is a gaping hole in zsmalloc, which > > > > affects production systems. A generalized LRU list is a good idea, > > > > but it's a huge task that from a user pov really is not > > > > critical. Even from a kernel dev / maintainer POV, there are bigger > > > > fish to fry in the zswap code base and the backends than this. > > > > > > > > 2. Refactoring existing functionality is much easier than writing > > > > generalized code that simultaneously enables new behavior. zsmalloc > > > > is the most complex of our backends. To make its LRU writeback work > > > > we had to patch zswap's ->map ordering to accomodate it, e.g. Such > > > > tricky changes are easier to make and test incrementally. > > > > > > > > The generalized LRU project will hugely benefit from already having > > > > a proven writeback implementation in zsmalloc, because then all the > > > > requirements in zswap and zsmalloc will be in black and white. > > > > > > > > > > I get that your main interest is zram, and so this feature isn't of > > > > > > interest to you. But zram isn't the only user, nor is it the primary > > > > > > > > > > I am interest to the feature but my interest is more of general swap > > > > > layer to manage the LRU so that it could support any hierarchy among > > > > > swap devices, not only zswap. > > > > > > > > I think we're on the same page about the longer term goals. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah. As Johannes said, I was also recently looking into this. This > > > can also help solve other problems than consolidating implementations. > > > Currently if zswap rejects a page, it goes into swap, which is > > > more-or-less a violation of page LRUs since hotter pages that are more > > > recently reclaimed end up in swap (slow), while colder pages that were > > > reclaimed before are in zswap. Having a separate layer managing the > > > LRU of swap pages can also make sure this doesn't happen. > > > > True. > > > > > > > > More broadly, making zswap a separate layer from swap enables other > > > improvements such as using zswap regardless of the presence of a > > > backend swapfile and not consuming space in swapfiles if a page is in > > > zswap. Of course, this is a much larger surgery. > > > > If we could decouple the LRU writeback from zswap and supports > > compression without backing swapfile, sounds like becoming more of > > zram. ;-) > > That's a little bit grey. Maybe we can consolidate them one day :) > > We have been using zswap without swapfile at Google for a while, this > gives us the ability to reject pages that do not compress well enough > for us, which I suspect zram would not support given that it is > designed to be the final destination of the page. Also, having the zRAM could do with little change but at current implmentation, it will print swapout failure message(it's not a big deal since we could suppress) but I have thought rather than that, we needs to move the page unevictable LRU list with marking the page CoW to catch a time to move the page into evictable LRU list o provide second chance to be compressed. Just off-topic. > same configuration and code running on machines whether or not they > have a swapfile is nice, otherwise one would need to use zram if there > is no swapfile and switch to zswap if there is one.