Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock

["tiantao (H)" <tiantao6@huawei.com>]

在 2020/12/23 8:11, Vitaly Wool 写道:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2020, 22:06 Song Bao Hua (Barry Song),
> <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Vitaly Wool [mailto:vitaly.wool@konsulko.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 10:44 PM
>>> To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>
>>> Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>; Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>; Mike
>>> Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>; LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; linux-mm
>>> <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>;
>>> NitinGupta <ngupta@vflare.org>; Sergey Senozhatsky
>>> <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>; Andrew Morton
>>> <akpm@linux-foundation.org>; tiantao (H) <tiantao6@hisilicon.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
>>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2020, 03:11 Song Bao Hua (Barry Song),
>>> <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 3:03 PM
>>>>> To: 'Vitaly Wool' <vitaly.wool@konsulko.com>
>>>>> Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>; Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>;
>>> Mike
>>>>> Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>; LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; linux-mm
>>>>> <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>;
>>>>> NitinGupta <ngupta@vflare.org>; Sergey Senozhatsky
>>>>> <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>; Andrew Morton
>>>>> <akpm@linux-foundation.org>; tiantao (H) <tiantao6@hisilicon.com>
>>>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm still not convinced. Will kmap what, src? At this point src might
>>> become
>>>>> just a bogus pointer.
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as the memory is still there, we can kmap it by its page struct.
>>> But
>>>>> if
>>>>> it is not there anymore, we have no way.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why couldn't the object have been moved somewhere else (due to the compaction
>>>>> mechanism for instance)
>>>>>> at the time DMA kicks in?
>>>>> So zs_map_object() will guarantee the src won't be moved by holding those
>>>>> preemption-disabled lock?
>>>>> If so, it seems we have to drop the MOVABLE gfp in zswap for zsmalloc case?
>>>>>
>>>> Or we can do get_page() to avoid the movement of the page.
>>>
>>> I would like to discuss this more in zswap context than zsmalloc's.
>>> Since zsmalloc does not implement reclaim callback, using it in zswap
>>> is a corner case anyway.
>> I see. But it seems we still need a solution for the compatibility
>> of zsmalloc and zswap? this will require change in either zsmalloc
>> or zswap.
>> or do you want to make zswap depend on !ZSMALLOC?
> No, I really don't think we should go that far. What if we add a flag
> to zpool, named like "can_sleep_mapped", and have it set for
> zbud/z3fold?
> Then zswap could go the current path if the flag is set; and if it's
> not set, and mutex_trylock fails, copy data from src to a temporary
> buffer, then unmap the handle, take the mutex, process the buffer
> instead of src. Not the nicest thing to do but at least it won't break
> anything.

write the following patch according to your idea, what do you think ?

--- a/mm/zswap.c

+++ b/mm/zswap.c
@@ -1235,7 +1235,7 @@ static int zswap_frontswap_load(unsigned type, 
pgoff_t offset,
         struct zswap_entry *entry;
         struct scatterlist input, output;
         struct crypto_acomp_ctx *acomp_ctx;
-       u8 *src, *dst;
+       u8 *src, *dst, *tmp;
         unsigned int dlen;
         int ret;

@@ -1262,16 +1262,26 @@ static int zswap_frontswap_load(unsigned type, 
pgoff_t offset,
         if (zpool_evictable(entry->pool->zpool))
                 src += sizeof(struct zswap_header);

+       if (!zpool_can_sleep_mapped(entry->pool->zpool) && 
!mutex_trylock(acomp_ctx->mutex)) {
+               tmp = kmemdup(src, entry->length, GFP_ATOMIC);
+               zpool_unmap_handle(entry->pool->zpool, entry->handle); ???
+               if (!tmp)
+                       goto freeentry;
+       }
         acomp_ctx = raw_cpu_ptr(entry->pool->acomp_ctx);
         mutex_lock(acomp_ctx->mutex);
-       sg_init_one(&input, src, entry->length);
+       sg_init_one(&input, zpool_can_sleep_mapped(entry->pool->zpool) ? 
src : tmp, entry->length);
         sg_init_table(&output, 1);
         sg_set_page(&output, page, PAGE_SIZE, 0);
         acomp_request_set_params(acomp_ctx->req, &input, &output, 
entry->length, dlen);
         ret = crypto_wait_req(crypto_acomp_decompress(acomp_ctx->req), 
&acomp_ctx->wait);
         mutex_unlock(acomp_ctx->mutex);

-       zpool_unmap_handle(entry->pool->zpool, entry->handle);
+       if (zpool_can_sleep_mapped(entry->pool->zpool))
+               zpool_unmap_handle(entry->pool->zpool, entry->handle);
+       else
+               kfree(tmp);
+
--- a/mm/zsmalloc.c
+++ b/mm/zsmalloc.c
@@ -440,6 +440,7 @@ static u64 zs_zpool_total_size(void *pool)

  static struct zpool_driver zs_zpool_driver = {
         .type =                   "zsmalloc",
+       .sleep_mapped =           false,
         .owner =                  THIS_MODULE,
         .create =                 zs_zpool_create,
         .destroy =                zs_zpool_destroy,

>
> ~Vitaly
>
>>> zswap, on the other hand, may be dealing with some new backends in
>>> future which have more chances to become mainstream. Imagine typical
>>> NUMA-like cases, i. e. a zswap pool allocated in some kind SRAM, or in
>>> unused video memory. In such a case if you try to use a pointer to an
>>> invalidated zpool mapping, you are on the way to thrash the system.
>>> So: no assumptions that the zswap pool is in regular linear RAM should
>>> be made.
>>>
>>> ~Vitaly
>> Thanks
>> Barry