Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/7] mm: zswap: add pool shrinking mechanism

Yosry Ahmed
2023-06-07T09:31:58Z

On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 2:22 AM Domenico Cerasuolo
<cerasuolodomenico@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 10:14 AM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 7:56 AM Domenico Cerasuolo
> > <cerasuolodomenico@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Each zpool driver (zbud, z3fold and zsmalloc) implements its own shrink
> > > function, which is called from zpool_shrink. However, with this commit,
> > > a unified shrink function is added to zswap. The ultimate goal is to
> > > eliminate the need for zpool_shrink once all zpool implementations have
> > > dropped their shrink code.
> > >
> > > To ensure the functionality of each commit, this change focuses solely
> > > on adding the mechanism itself. No modifications are made to
> > > the backends, meaning that functionally, there are no immediate changes.
> > > The zswap mechanism will only come into effect once the backends have
> > > removed their shrink code. The subsequent commits will address the
> > > modifications needed in the backends.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Domenico Cerasuolo <cerasuolodomenico@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > mm/zswap.c | 96 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > 1 file changed, 91 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c
> > > index bcb82e09eb64..c99bafcefecf 100644
> > > --- a/mm/zswap.c
> > > +++ b/mm/zswap.c
> > > @@ -150,6 +150,12 @@ struct crypto_acomp_ctx {
> > > struct mutex *mutex;
> > > };
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * The lock ordering is zswap_tree.lock -> zswap_pool.lru_lock.
> > > + * The only case where lru_lock is not acquired while holding tree.lock is
> > > + * when a zswap_entry is taken off the lru for writeback, in that case it
> > > + * needs to be verified that it's still valid in the tree.
> > > + */
> > > struct zswap_pool {
> > > struct zpool *zpool;
> > > struct crypto_acomp_ctx __percpu *acomp_ctx;
> > > @@ -159,6 +165,8 @@ struct zswap_pool {
> > > struct work_struct shrink_work;
> > > struct hlist_node node;
> > > char tfm_name[CRYPTO_MAX_ALG_NAME];
> > > + struct list_head lru;
> > > + spinlock_t lru_lock;
> > > };
> > >
> > > /*
> > > @@ -176,10 +184,12 @@ struct zswap_pool {
> > > * be held while changing the refcount. Since the lock must
> > > * be held, there is no reason to also make refcount atomic.
> > > * length - the length in bytes of the compressed page data. Needed during
> > > - * decompression. For a same value filled page length is 0.
> > > + * decompression. For a same value filled page length is 0, and both
> > > + * pool and lru are invalid and must be ignored.
> > > * pool - the zswap_pool the entry's data is in
> > > * handle - zpool allocation handle that stores the compressed page data
> > > * value - value of the same-value filled pages which have same content
> > > + * lru - handle to the pool's lru used to evict pages.
> > > */
> > > struct zswap_entry {
> > > struct rb_node rbnode;
> > > @@ -192,6 +202,7 @@ struct zswap_entry {
> > > unsigned long value;
> > > };
> > > struct obj_cgroup *objcg;
> > > + struct list_head lru;
> > > };
> > >
> > > struct zswap_header {
> > > @@ -364,6 +375,12 @@ static void zswap_free_entry(struct zswap_entry *entry)
> > > if (!entry->length)
> > > atomic_dec(&zswap_same_filled_pages);
> > > else {
> > > + /* zpool_evictable will be removed once all 3 backends have migrated */
> > > + if (!zpool_evictable(entry->pool->zpool)) {
> > > + spin_lock(&entry->pool->lru_lock);
> > > + list_del(&entry->lru);
> > > + spin_unlock(&entry->pool->lru_lock);
> > > + }
> > > zpool_free(entry->pool->zpool, entry->handle);
> > > zswap_pool_put(entry->pool);
> > > }
> > > @@ -584,14 +601,70 @@ static struct zswap_pool *zswap_pool_find_get(char *type, char *compressor)
> > > return NULL;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static int zswap_shrink(struct zswap_pool *pool)
> >
> > Nit: rename to zswap_shrink_one() so that it's clear we always
> > writeback one entry per call?
>
> I named it like that to mirror zpool_shrink but I think that you've got a point
> in that it might not be very clear that it is shrinking by one page only.
> What about zswap_reclaim_entry? I'm not a native speaker, but with
> zswap_shrink_one I wouldn't obviously intend that the "one" refers to an
> entry.

I am not a native speaker either, but zswap_reclaim_entry() sounds
much better :)

>
> >
> > > +{
> > > + struct zswap_entry *lru_entry, *tree_entry = NULL;
> > > + struct zswap_header *zhdr;
> > > + struct zswap_tree *tree;
> > > + int swpoffset;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + /* get a reclaimable entry from LRU */
> > > + spin_lock(&pool->lru_lock);
> > > + if (list_empty(&pool->lru)) {
> > > + spin_unlock(&pool->lru_lock);
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> > > + lru_entry = list_last_entry(&pool->lru, struct zswap_entry, lru);
> > > + list_del_init(&lru_entry->lru);
> > > + zhdr = zpool_map_handle(pool->zpool, lru_entry->handle, ZPOOL_MM_RO);
> > > + tree = zswap_trees[swp_type(zhdr->swpentry)];
> > > + zpool_unmap_handle(pool->zpool, lru_entry->handle);
> > > + /*
> > > + * Once the pool lock is dropped, the lru_entry might get freed. The
> >
> > Nit: lru lock*
> >
> > > + * swpoffset is copied to the stack, and lru_entry isn't deref'd again
> > > + * until the entry is verified to still be alive in the tree.
> > > + */
> > > + swpoffset = swp_offset(zhdr->swpentry);
> > > + spin_unlock(&pool->lru_lock);
> > > +
> > > + /* hold a reference from tree so it won't be freed during writeback */
> > > + spin_lock(&tree->lock);
> > > + tree_entry = zswap_entry_find_get(&tree->rbroot, swpoffset);
> > > + if (tree_entry != lru_entry) {
> > > + if (tree_entry)
> > > + zswap_entry_put(tree, tree_entry);
> > > + spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
> > > + return -EAGAIN;
> > > + }
> > > + spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
> > > +
> > > + ret = zswap_writeback_entry(pool->zpool, lru_entry->handle);
> > > +
> > > + spin_lock(&tree->lock);
> > > + if (ret) {
> > > + spin_lock(&pool->lru_lock);
> > > + list_move(&lru_entry->lru, &pool->lru);
> > > + spin_unlock(&pool->lru_lock);
> > > + }
> > > + zswap_entry_put(tree, tree_entry);
> > > + spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
> > > +
> > > + return ret ? -EAGAIN : 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static void shrink_worker(struct work_struct *w)
> > > {
> > > struct zswap_pool *pool = container_of(w, typeof(*pool),
> > > shrink_work);
> > > int ret, failures = 0;
> > >
> > > + /* zpool_evictable will be removed once all 3 backends have migrated */
> > > do {
> > > - ret = zpool_shrink(pool->zpool, 1, NULL);
> > > + if (zpool_evictable(pool->zpool))
> > > + ret = zpool_shrink(pool->zpool, 1, NULL);
> > > + else
> > > + ret = zswap_shrink(pool);
> > > if (ret) {
> > > zswap_reject_reclaim_fail++;
> > > if (ret != -EAGAIN)
> > > @@ -655,6 +728,8 @@ static struct zswap_pool *zswap_pool_create(char *type, char *compressor)
> > > */
> > > kref_init(&pool->kref);
> > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pool->list);
> > > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pool->lru);
> > > + spin_lock_init(&pool->lru_lock);
> > > INIT_WORK(&pool->shrink_work, shrink_worker);
> > >
> > > zswap_pool_debug("created", pool);
> > > @@ -1270,7 +1345,7 @@ static int zswap_frontswap_store(unsigned type, pgoff_t offset,
> > > }
> > >
> > > /* store */
> > > - hlen = zpool_evictable(entry->pool->zpool) ? sizeof(zhdr) : 0;
> > > + hlen = sizeof(zhdr);
> > > gfp = __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM;
> > > if (zpool_malloc_support_movable(entry->pool->zpool))
> > > gfp |= __GFP_HIGHMEM | __GFP_MOVABLE;
> > > @@ -1313,6 +1388,12 @@ static int zswap_frontswap_store(unsigned type, pgoff_t offset,
> > > zswap_entry_put(tree, dupentry);
> > > }
> > > } while (ret == -EEXIST);
> > > + /* zpool_evictable will be removed once all 3 backends have migrated */
> > > + if (entry->length && !zpool_evictable(entry->pool->zpool)) {
> > > + spin_lock(&entry->pool->lru_lock);
> > > + list_add(&entry->lru, &entry->pool->lru);
> > > + spin_unlock(&entry->pool->lru_lock);
> > > + }
> > > spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
> > >
> > > /* update stats */
> > > @@ -1384,8 +1465,7 @@ static int zswap_frontswap_load(unsigned type, pgoff_t offset,
> > > /* decompress */
> > > dlen = PAGE_SIZE;
> > > src = zpool_map_handle(entry->pool->zpool, entry->handle, ZPOOL_MM_RO);
> > > - if (zpool_evictable(entry->pool->zpool))
> > > - src += sizeof(struct zswap_header);
> > > + src += sizeof(struct zswap_header);
> > >
> > > if (!zpool_can_sleep_mapped(entry->pool->zpool)) {
> > > memcpy(tmp, src, entry->length);
> > > @@ -1415,6 +1495,12 @@ static int zswap_frontswap_load(unsigned type, pgoff_t offset,
> > > freeentry:
> > > spin_lock(&tree->lock);
> > > zswap_entry_put(tree, entry);
> > > + /* zpool_evictable will be removed once all 3 backends have migrated */
> > > + if (entry->length && !zpool_evictable(entry->pool->zpool)) {
> > > + spin_lock(&entry->pool->lru_lock);
> > > + list_move(&entry->lru, &entry->pool->lru);
> > > + spin_unlock(&entry->pool->lru_lock);
> > > + }
> >
> > It's not really this patch's fault, but when merged with commit
> > fe1d1f7d0fb5 ("mm: zswap: support exclusive loads") from mm-unstable
> > [1], and with CONFIG_ZSWAP_EXCLUSIVE_LOADS=y, this causes a crash.
> >
> > This happens because fe1d1f7d0fb5 makes the loads exclusive, so
> > zswap_entry_put(tree, entry) above the added code causes the entry to
> > be freed, then we go ahead and deference multiple fields within it in
> > the added chunk. Moving the chunk above zswap_entry_put() (and
> > consequently also above zswap_invalidate_entry() from fe1d1f7d0fb5)
> > makes this work correctly.
> >
> > Perhaps it would be useful to rebase on top of fe1d1f7d0fb5 for your
> > next version(s), if any.
>
> Will definitely rebase, I just now saw that you tested the suggested resolution
> below, thanks, it does make sense.
>
> >
> > Maybe the outcome would be something like:
> >
> > zswap_entry_put(tree, entry);
> > if (!ret && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ZSWAP_EXCLUSIVE_LOADS)) {
> > zswap_invalidate_entry(tree, entry);
> > } else if (entry->length && !zpool_evictable(entry->pool->zpool)) {
> > spin_lock(&entry->pool->lru_lock);
> > list_move(&entry->lru, &entry->pool->lru);
> > spin_unlock(&entry->pool->lru_lock);
> > }
> >
> > I am assuming if we are going to invalidate the entry anyway there is
> > no need to move it to the front of the lru -- but I didn't really
> > think it through.
> >
> > [1]https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230530210251.493194-1-yosryahmed@google.com/
> >
> > > spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
> > >
> > > return ret;
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> > >