Linux Virtualization - Apr 2016 - [PATCH v3 11/16] zsmalloc: separate free_zspage from putback_zspage

Hello Minchan,

On (03/30/16 16:12), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> @@ -1835,23 +1827,31 @@ static void __zs_compact(struct zs_pool *pool,
struct size_class *class)
>  			if (!migrate_zspage(pool, class, &cc))
>  				break;
>  
> -			putback_zspage(pool, class, dst_page);
> +			VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(putback_zspage(pool, class,
> +				dst_page) == ZS_EMPTY, dst_page);
can this VM_BUG_ON_PAGE() condition ever be true?
>  		}
>  		/* Stop if we couldn't find slot */
>  		if (dst_page == NULL)
>  			break;
> -		putback_zspage(pool, class, dst_page);
> -		if (putback_zspage(pool, class, src_page) == ZS_EMPTY)
> +		VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(putback_zspage(pool, class,
> +				dst_page) == ZS_EMPTY, dst_page);
hm... this VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(dst_page) is sort of confusing. under what
circumstances it can be true?

a minor nit, it took me some time (need some coffee I guess) to
correctly parse this macro wrapper

		VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(putback_zspage(pool, class,
			dst_page) == ZS_EMPTY, dst_page);

may be do it like:
		fullness = putback_zspage(pool, class, dst_page);
		VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(fullness == ZS_EMPTY, dst_page);


well, if we want to VM_BUG_ON_PAGE() at all. there haven't been any
problems with compaction, is there any specific reason these macros
were added?


> +		if (putback_zspage(pool, class, src_page) == ZS_EMPTY) {
>  			pool->stats.pages_compacted += class->pages_per_zspage;
> -		spin_unlock(&class->lock);
> +			spin_unlock(&class->lock);
> +			free_zspage(pool, class, src_page);
do we really need to free_zspage() out of class->lock?
wouldn't something like this

		if (putback_zspage(pool, class, src_page) == ZS_EMPTY) {
			pool->stats.pages_compacted += class->pages_per_zspage;
			free_zspage(pool, class, src_page);
		}
		spin_unlock(&class->lock);

be simpler?

besides, free_zspage() now updates class stats out of class lock,
not critical but still.

	-ss
> +		} else {
> +			spin_unlock(&class->lock);
> +		}
> +
>  		cond_resched();
>  		spin_lock(&class->lock);
>  	}
>  
>  	if (src_page)
> -		putback_zspage(pool, class, src_page);
> +		VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(putback_zspage(pool, class,
> +				src_page) == ZS_EMPTY, src_page);
>  
>  	spin_unlock(&class->lock);
>  }

Hi Sergey,

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:04:08AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky
wrote:
> Hello Minchan,
> 
> On (03/30/16 16:12), Minchan Kim wrote:
> [..]
> > @@ -1835,23 +1827,31 @@ static void __zs_compact(struct zs_pool *pool,
struct size_class *class)
> >  			if (!migrate_zspage(pool, class, &cc))
> >  				break;
> >  
> > -			putback_zspage(pool, class, dst_page);
> > +			VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(putback_zspage(pool, class,
> > +				dst_page) == ZS_EMPTY, dst_page);
> 
> can this VM_BUG_ON_PAGE() condition ever be true?
I guess it is remained thing after I rebased to catch any mistake.
But I'm heavily chainging this part.
Please review next version instead of this after a few days. :)
> 
> >  		}
> >  		/* Stop if we couldn't find slot */
> >  		if (dst_page == NULL)
> >  			break;
> > -		putback_zspage(pool, class, dst_page);
> > -		if (putback_zspage(pool, class, src_page) == ZS_EMPTY)
> > +		VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(putback_zspage(pool, class,
> > +				dst_page) == ZS_EMPTY, dst_page);
> 
> hm... this VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(dst_page) is sort of confusing. under what
> circumstances it can be true?
> 
> a minor nit, it took me some time (need some coffee I guess) to
> correctly parse this macro wrapper
> 
> 		VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(putback_zspage(pool, class,
> 			dst_page) == ZS_EMPTY, dst_page);
> 
> may be do it like:
> 		fullness = putback_zspage(pool, class, dst_page);
> 		VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(fullness == ZS_EMPTY, dst_page);
> 
> 
> well, if we want to VM_BUG_ON_PAGE() at all. there haven't been any
> problems with compaction, is there any specific reason these macros
> were added?
> 
> 
> 
> > +		if (putback_zspage(pool, class, src_page) == ZS_EMPTY) {
> >  			pool->stats.pages_compacted += class->pages_per_zspage;
> > -		spin_unlock(&class->lock);
> > +			spin_unlock(&class->lock);
> > +			free_zspage(pool, class, src_page);
> 
> do we really need to free_zspage() out of class->lock?
> wouldn't something like this
> 
> 		if (putback_zspage(pool, class, src_page) == ZS_EMPTY) {
> 			pool->stats.pages_compacted += class->pages_per_zspage;
> 			free_zspage(pool, class, src_page);
> 		}
> 		spin_unlock(&class->lock);
> 
> be simpler?
The reason I did out of class->lock is deadlock between page_lock
and class->lock with upcoming page migration.
However, as I said, I'm now heavily changing the part. :)
> 
> besides, free_zspage() now updates class stats out of class lock,
> not critical but still.
> 
> 	-ss
> 
> > +		} else {
> > +			spin_unlock(&class->lock);
> > +		}
> > +
> >  		cond_resched();
> >  		spin_lock(&class->lock);
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	if (src_page)
> > -		putback_zspage(pool, class, src_page);
> > +		VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(putback_zspage(pool, class,
> > +				src_page) == ZS_EMPTY, src_page);
> >  
> >  	spin_unlock(&class->lock);
> >  }

Hello Minchan,

On (04/19/16 16:51), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> 
> I guess it is remained thing after I rebased to catch any mistake.
> But I'm heavily chainging this part.
> Please review next version instead of this after a few days. :)
ah, got it. thanks!

	-ss