Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock | From | "tiantao (H)" <> | Date | Wed, 23 Dec 2020 20:44:04 +0800 |
| |
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
| |