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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF6AC433FE for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2022 07:10:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229817AbiKVHK0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Nov 2022 02:10:26 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33646 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229459AbiKVHKV (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Nov 2022 02:10:21 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-x730.google.com (mail-qk1-x730.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::730]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21F5D303E8 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 23:10:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qk1-x730.google.com with SMTP id k2so9647721qkk.7 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 23:10:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cmpxchg-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=N0ePOSWm5GF0+U93OsaUkQqKYc/c980Yryga0ApomJ0=; b=2AS8IwguOVXBUzclfYlmbCqYBHG0NHX+aQ3smSIgb1aDeYTSneuiqM1lRUGI57ueox CqNiKQS4Fh73VOCUKCay2gN86S67NKcmRzh59+aE0F+8CEHW17KDjcgc3Y2pwd4iqLXv c/Rj/NjZQxPWUSyb5EoJhC28oN8FRjqEJZr/GAVCIHgXlEBL6zaCpWhJ6zatcfn37Lau MhBjtdfecBLj+BGLoU7nSLzYEvIcJoUB+U+3r0XAoUOcOPGi3v+JBUWygJEnWWhSq64o IxPLC0b0ZpggBGiTcu4sLDvQihOYIH9gAmToKUy6SvAuf5tU07VZm6FKmKmE96VmhXPZ bWZg== 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:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=N0ePOSWm5GF0+U93OsaUkQqKYc/c980Yryga0ApomJ0=; b=6BIX3RONwwQxmHPb2Yqf9piclb2RoP9iLf7gJbYOHwyooecE0mHyV6WEXbNC4r23D8 T+PxyeNzmCOZXAC4H8L/4MxWkykFabNWirJPMwzd+hMcukijhHKe8JR98YTlXgrkqzxg EhRwz6zYhYHgg/F3F+zAP4rB7vbulXj9kYNuep4FVMrvdbCG68IpibtjSllh0t5WOmiU wnRSBPTMVoDpGkAn3uqjQWO59wN4x7CehSXqjIifn6KKgabOkdNiSlhIj2I2rUC3dIPk xNIGOrmgW9UL5kvTwVP6uUjiVuYAZ5KFVSaVTQ1tEA2i7gZxX5DkA1lDsEFCtOMDi00O WtmQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pk3850zxXsTc3zZy3a6EfeZbBnNl+Kg/U7270anALcQqguvi7Tn QUwlntLy3O8EG/CUhyudFUU11A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf5uIsVlGin2a0JGaSWWceiuaeqiHi/K1ZQltP+24OvdER1NKz2UraFtIV1/KNqJPuv6DHNY8w== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1423:b0:6f3:e3b7:6a5b with SMTP id k3-20020a05620a142300b006f3e3b76a5bmr19599460qkj.607.1669100986453; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 23:09:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2620:10d:c091:480::1:bc4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x13-20020a05620a448d00b006fa4ac86bfbsm9604082qkp.55.2022.11.21.23.09.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 21 Nov 2022 23:09:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 02:10:11 -0500 From: Johannes Weiner To: Sergey Senozhatsky Cc: Nhat Pham , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, minchan@kernel.org, ngupta@vflare.org, sjenning@redhat.com, ddstreet@ieee.org, vitaly.wool@konsulko.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] zsmalloc: Implement writeback mechanism for zsmalloc Message-ID: References: <20221119001536.2086599-1-nphamcs@gmail.com> <20221119001536.2086599-7-nphamcs@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 03:35:18PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (22/11/22 01:09), Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 12:42:20PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > > On (22/11/21 22:12), Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 11:15:20AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > > > > On (22/11/18 16:15), Nhat Pham wrote: > > [..] > > > > What I meant was: if zs_reclaim_page() makes only partial progress > > > with the current LRU tail zspage and returns -EAGAIN, then we just > > > don't increment `total` and continue looping in zs_zpool_shrink(). > > > > Hm, but it breaks on -EAGAIN, it doesn't continue. > > Yes. "What if it would continue". Would it make sense to not > break on EAGAIN? > > while (total < pages) { > ret = zs_reclaim_page(pool); > if (ret == -EAGAIN) > continue; > if (ret < 0) > break; > total++; > } > > Then we don't need retry loop in zs_reclaim_page(). But that's an indefinite busy-loop? I don't see what the problem with limited retrying in zs_reclaim_page() is. It's robust and has worked for years.