Hi Dan, On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:14 AM, Dan Streetman wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 5:57 AM, Li Wang wrote: > > The '/sys/../zswap/stored_pages:' keep raising in zswap test with > > "zswap.max_pool_percent=0" parameter. But theoretically, it should > > not compress or store pages any more since there is no space for > > compressed pool. > > > > Reproduce steps: > > > > 1. Boot kernel with "zswap.enabled=1 zswap.max_pool_percent=17" > > 2. Set the max_pool_percent to 0 > > # echo 0 > /sys/module/zswap/parameters/max_pool_percent > > Confirm this parameter works fine > > # cat /sys/kernel/debug/zswap/pool_total_size > > 0 > > 3. Do memory stress test to see if some pages have been compressed > > # stress --vm 1 --vm-bytes $mem_available"M" --timeout 60s > > Watching the 'stored_pages' numbers increasing or not > > > > The root cause is: > > > > When the zswap_max_pool_percent is set to 0 via kernel parameter, the > zswap_is_full() > > will always return true to shrink the pool size by zswap_shrink(). If > the pool size > > has been shrinked a little success, zswap will do compress/store pages > again. Then we > > get fails on that as above. > > special casing 0% doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and I'm not > entirely sure what exactly you are trying to fix here. > ​Sorry for that confusing, I am a pretty new to zswap. To specify 0 to max_pool_percent is purpose to verify if zswap stopping work when there is no space in compressed pool.​ Another consideration from me is: [Method A] --- a/mm/zswap.c +++ b/mm/zswap.c @@ -1021,7 +1021,7 @@ static int zswap_frontswap_store(unsigned type, pgoff_t offset, /* reclaim space if needed */ if (zswap_is_full()) { zswap_pool_limit_hit++; - if (zswap_shrink()) { + if (!zswap_max_pool_percent || zswap_shrink()) { zswap_reject_reclaim_fail++; ret = -ENOMEM; goto reject; This make sure the compressed pool is enough to do zswap_shrink(). > > however, zswap does currently do a zswap_is_full() check, and then if > it's able to reclaim a page happily proceeds to store another page, > without re-checking zswap_is_full(). If you're trying to fix that, > then I would ack a patch that adds a second zswap_is_full() check > after zswap_shrink() to make sure it's now under the max_pool_percent > (or somehow otherwise fixes that behavior). > > ​Ok, it sounds like can also fix the issue. The changes maybe like: [Method B] --- a/mm/zswap.c +++ b/mm/zswap.c @@ -1026,6 +1026,15 @@ static int zswap_frontswap_store(unsigned type, pgoff_t offset, ret = -ENOMEM; goto reject; } + + /* A second zswap_is_full() check after + * zswap_shrink() to make sure it's now + * under the max_pool_percent + */ + if (zswap_is_full()) { + ret = -ENOMEM; + goto reject; + } } So, which one do you think is better, A or B? -- Regards, Li Wang