Re: [PATCH v4 02/22] mm/zsmalloc: use zpdesc in trylock_zspage/lock_zspage

Vishal Moola
2024-08-02T19:02:06Z

On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 07:25:14PM +0800, alexs@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Alex Shi <alexs@kernel.org>
>
> To use zpdesc in trylock_zspage/lock_zspage funcs, we add couple of helpers:
> zpdesc_lock/zpdesc_unlock/zpdesc_trylock/zpdesc_wait_locked and
> zpdesc_get/zpdesc_put for this purpose.

You should always include the "()" following function names. It just
makes everything more readable.

> Here we use the folio series func in guts for 2 reasons, one zswap.zpool
> only get single page, and use folio could save some compound_head checking;
> two, folio_put could bypass devmap checking that we don't need.
>
> Originally-by: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alexs@kernel.org>
> ---
> mm/zpdesc.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> mm/zsmalloc.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> 2 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/zpdesc.h b/mm/zpdesc.h
> index 2dbef231f616..3b04197cec9d 100644
> --- a/mm/zpdesc.h
> +++ b/mm/zpdesc.h
> @@ -63,4 +63,34 @@ static_assert(sizeof(struct zpdesc) <= sizeof(struct page));
> const struct page *: (const struct zpdesc *)(p), \
> struct page *: (struct zpdesc *)(p)))
>
> +static inline void zpdesc_lock(struct zpdesc *zpdesc)
> +{
> + folio_lock(zpdesc_folio(zpdesc));
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool zpdesc_trylock(struct zpdesc *zpdesc)
> +{
> + return folio_trylock(zpdesc_folio(zpdesc));
> +}
> +
> +static inline void zpdesc_unlock(struct zpdesc *zpdesc)
> +{
> + folio_unlock(zpdesc_folio(zpdesc));
> +}
> +
> +static inline void zpdesc_wait_locked(struct zpdesc *zpdesc)
> +{
> + folio_wait_locked(zpdesc_folio(zpdesc));
> +}

The more I look at zsmalloc, the more skeptical I get about it "needing"
the folio_lock. At a glance it seems like a zspage already has its own lock,
and the migration doesn't appear to be truly physical? There's probably
something I'm missing... it would make this code a lot simpler to drop
many of the folio locks.

> +
> +static inline void zpdesc_get(struct zpdesc *zpdesc)
> +{
> + folio_get(zpdesc_folio(zpdesc));
> +}
> +
> +static inline void zpdesc_put(struct zpdesc *zpdesc)
> +{
> + folio_put(zpdesc_folio(zpdesc));
> +}
> +
> #endif
> diff --git a/mm/zsmalloc.c b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> index a532851025f9..243677a9c6d2 100644
> --- a/mm/zsmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> @@ -433,13 +433,17 @@ static __maybe_unused int is_first_page(struct page *page)
> return PagePrivate(page);
> }
>
> +static int is_first_zpdesc(struct zpdesc *zpdesc)
> +{
> + return PagePrivate(zpdesc_page(zpdesc));
> +}
> +

I feel like we might not even need to use the PG_private flag for
zpages? It seems to me like its just used for sanity checking. Can
zpage->first_page ever not point to the first zpdesc?

For the purpose of introducing the memdesc its fine to continue using
it; just some food for thought.