| Message ID | 20211001181627.394921-1-bgeffon@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | zram: Allow backing device to be assigned after init | expand |
On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 11:16:27 -0700 Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com> wrote: > There does not appear to be a technical reason to not > allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the > zram device is initialized. > > This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned > as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that > event backing_dev would return -EEXIST. Why is this useful?
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 7:22 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 11:16:27 -0700 Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com> wrote: > > > There does not appear to be a technical reason to not > > allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the > > zram device is initialized. > > > > This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned > > as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that > > event backing_dev would return -EEXIST. > > Why is this useful? Hi Andrew, In the case of ChromeOS we're backing zram with a loop device. For us, having the ability to size the backing file after the system has fully booted proves to be very useful. Also, doing so later allows us to place users in different experimental groups while we evaluate the performance of swapping to disk in the wild. Both of these things would be much harder if we did it early on when swap is first brought up or would require us to delay starting swap altogether. Brian
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:16:27AM -0700, Brian Geffon wrote: > There does not appear to be a technical reason to not > allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the > zram device is initialized. > > This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned > as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that > event backing_dev would return -EEXIST. > > Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com> > --- > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > index fcaf2750f68f..12b4555ee079 100644 > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > @@ -462,9 +462,9 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev, > return -ENOMEM; > > down_write(&zram->init_lock); > - if (init_done(zram)) { > - pr_info("Can't setup backing device for initialized device\n"); > - err = -EBUSY; > + if (zram->backing_dev) { > + pr_info("Backing device is already assigned\n"); > + err = -EEXIST; > goto out; Hi Brian, I am worry about the inconsistency with other interface of current zram set up. They were supposed to set it up before zram disksize setting because it makes code more simple/maintainalbe in that we don't need to check some feature on the fly. Let's think about when zram extends the writeback of incompressible page on demand. The write path will need the backing_dev under down_read(&zarm->init_lock) or other conditional variable to check whether the feature is enabled or not on the fly. It adds locking dependency as well as performance overhead(I don't think it's a good deal that scarfice hot path for rare event even though it's not that big).
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 2:29 PM Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:16:27AM -0700, Brian Geffon wrote: > > There does not appear to be a technical reason to not > > allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the > > zram device is initialized. > > > > This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned > > as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that > > event backing_dev would return -EEXIST. > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com> > > --- > > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 6 +++--- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > index fcaf2750f68f..12b4555ee079 100644 > > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > @@ -462,9 +462,9 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev, > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > down_write(&zram->init_lock); > > - if (init_done(zram)) { > > - pr_info("Can't setup backing device for initialized device\n"); > > - err = -EBUSY; > > + if (zram->backing_dev) { > > + pr_info("Backing device is already assigned\n"); > > + err = -EEXIST; > > goto out; > > Hi Brian, > Hi Minchan, > I am worry about the inconsistency with other interface of current zram > set up. They were supposed to set it up before zram disksize setting > because it makes code more simple/maintainalbe in that we don't need > to check some feature on the fly. > > Let's think about when zram extends the writeback of incompressible > page on demand. The write path will need the backing_dev under > down_read(&zarm->init_lock) or other conditional variable to check > whether the feature is enabled or not on the fly. I don't follow what you mean by that, writeback_store already holds down_read(&zarm->init_lock). Brian
On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 02:40:52PM -0400, Brian Geffon wrote: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 2:29 PM Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:16:27AM -0700, Brian Geffon wrote: > > > There does not appear to be a technical reason to not > > > allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the > > > zram device is initialized. > > > > > > This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned > > > as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that > > > event backing_dev would return -EEXIST. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 6 +++--- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > > index fcaf2750f68f..12b4555ee079 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > > @@ -462,9 +462,9 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev, > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > down_write(&zram->init_lock); > > > - if (init_done(zram)) { > > > - pr_info("Can't setup backing device for initialized device\n"); > > > - err = -EBUSY; > > > + if (zram->backing_dev) { > > > + pr_info("Backing device is already assigned\n"); > > > + err = -EEXIST; > > > goto out; > > > > Hi Brian, > > > > Hi Minchan, > > > I am worry about the inconsistency with other interface of current zram > > set up. They were supposed to set it up before zram disksize setting > > because it makes code more simple/maintainalbe in that we don't need > > to check some feature on the fly. > > > > Let's think about when zram extends the writeback of incompressible > > page on demand. The write path will need the backing_dev under > > down_read(&zarm->init_lock) or other conditional variable to check > > whether the feature is enabled or not on the fly. > > I don't follow what you mean by that, writeback_store already holds > down_read(&zarm->init_lock). I should have explained a bit more. Sorry about that. I am thinking about a feature to deal with incompressible page. Let's have an example to handle incompressible page for that. zram_bvec_rw zram_bvec_write if (comp_len >= huge_class) zs_page_writeback down_read(&zram->init_lock) or some other way It's just idea for incompressible page but we might intorduce the way for other compresible pages, too at some condition.
Hi Minchan, Thank you for expanding on that. The only situation where there will be lock contention that is problematic is when we're storing the backing device the first time, all other times the lock will be held as a read. Once the backing device has been set it cannot be set again (it would return -EEXIST). I think no matter what if we're doing writeback, even with the optimization you're describing, you'd have to hold the zram->init_lock as read to validate that you have a writeback device. Does that make sense? Brian On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 4:55 PM Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 02:40:52PM -0400, Brian Geffon wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 2:29 PM Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:16:27AM -0700, Brian Geffon wrote: > > > > There does not appear to be a technical reason to not > > > > allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the > > > > zram device is initialized. > > > > > > > > This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned > > > > as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that > > > > event backing_dev would return -EEXIST. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 6 +++--- > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > > > index fcaf2750f68f..12b4555ee079 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > > > @@ -462,9 +462,9 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev, > > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > > > down_write(&zram->init_lock); > > > > - if (init_done(zram)) { > > > > - pr_info("Can't setup backing device for initialized device\n"); > > > > - err = -EBUSY; > > > > + if (zram->backing_dev) { > > > > + pr_info("Backing device is already assigned\n"); > > > > + err = -EEXIST; > > > > goto out; > > > > > > Hi Brian, > > > > > > > Hi Minchan, > > > > > I am worry about the inconsistency with other interface of current zram > > > set up. They were supposed to set it up before zram disksize setting > > > because it makes code more simple/maintainalbe in that we don't need > > > to check some feature on the fly. > > > > > > Let's think about when zram extends the writeback of incompressible > > > page on demand. The write path will need the backing_dev under > > > down_read(&zarm->init_lock) or other conditional variable to check > > > whether the feature is enabled or not on the fly. > > > > I don't follow what you mean by that, writeback_store already holds > > down_read(&zarm->init_lock). > > I should have explained a bit more. Sorry about that. > I am thinking about a feature to deal with incompressible page. > Let's have an example to handle incompressible page for that. > > zram_bvec_rw > zram_bvec_write > if (comp_len >= huge_class) > zs_page_writeback > down_read(&zram->init_lock) or some other way > > It's just idea for incompressible page but we might intorduce > the way for other compresible pages, too at some condition.
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 4:55 PM Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 02:40:52PM -0400, Brian Geffon wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 2:29 PM Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:16:27AM -0700, Brian Geffon wrote: > > > > > There does not appear to be a technical reason to not > > > > > allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the > > > > > zram device is initialized. > > > > > > > > > > This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned > > > > > as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that > > > > > event backing_dev would return -EEXIST. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 6 +++--- > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > > > > index fcaf2750f68f..12b4555ee079 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > > > > @@ -462,9 +462,9 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev, > > > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > > > > > down_write(&zram->init_lock); > > > > > - if (init_done(zram)) { > > > > > - pr_info("Can't setup backing device for initialized device\n"); > > > > > - err = -EBUSY; > > > > > + if (zram->backing_dev) { > > > > > + pr_info("Backing device is already assigned\n"); > > > > > + err = -EEXIST; > > > > > goto out; > > > > > > > > Hi Brian, > > > > > > > > > > Hi Minchan, > > > > > > > I am worry about the inconsistency with other interface of current zram > > > > set up. They were supposed to set it up before zram disksize setting > > > > because it makes code more simple/maintainalbe in that we don't need > > > > to check some feature on the fly. > > > > > > > > Let's think about when zram extends the writeback of incompressible > > > > page on demand. The write path will need the backing_dev under > > > > down_read(&zarm->init_lock) or other conditional variable to check > > > > whether the feature is enabled or not on the fly. > > > > > > I don't follow what you mean by that, writeback_store already holds > > > down_read(&zarm->init_lock). > > > > I should have explained a bit more. Sorry about that. > > I am thinking about a feature to deal with incompressible page. > > Let's have an example to handle incompressible page for that. > > > > zram_bvec_rw > > zram_bvec_write > > if (comp_len >= huge_class) > > zs_page_writeback > > down_read(&zram->init_lock) or some other way > > > > It's just idea for incompressible page but we might intorduce > > the way for other compresible pages, too at some condition. (sorry for the top post before) Hi Minchan, I guess the point I was trying to make was that so long as we allow a reset operation we'll need to be taking the init lock in read mode before doing any writeback. Does that seem right? Brian
On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 11:18:38AM -0400, Brian Geffon wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 4:55 PM Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 02:40:52PM -0400, Brian Geffon wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 2:29 PM Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:16:27AM -0700, Brian Geffon wrote: > > > > > > There does not appear to be a technical reason to not > > > > > > allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the > > > > > > zram device is initialized. > > > > > > > > > > > > This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned > > > > > > as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that > > > > > > event backing_dev would return -EEXIST. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 6 +++--- > > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > > > > > index fcaf2750f68f..12b4555ee079 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > > > > > @@ -462,9 +462,9 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev, > > > > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > > > > > > > down_write(&zram->init_lock); > > > > > > - if (init_done(zram)) { > > > > > > - pr_info("Can't setup backing device for initialized device\n"); > > > > > > - err = -EBUSY; > > > > > > + if (zram->backing_dev) { > > > > > > + pr_info("Backing device is already assigned\n"); > > > > > > + err = -EEXIST; > > > > > > goto out; > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brian, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Minchan, > > > > > > > > > I am worry about the inconsistency with other interface of current zram > > > > > set up. They were supposed to set it up before zram disksize setting > > > > > because it makes code more simple/maintainalbe in that we don't need > > > > > to check some feature on the fly. > > > > > > > > > > Let's think about when zram extends the writeback of incompressible > > > > > page on demand. The write path will need the backing_dev under > > > > > down_read(&zarm->init_lock) or other conditional variable to check > > > > > whether the feature is enabled or not on the fly. > > > > > > > > I don't follow what you mean by that, writeback_store already holds > > > > down_read(&zarm->init_lock). > > > > > > I should have explained a bit more. Sorry about that. > > > I am thinking about a feature to deal with incompressible page. > > > Let's have an example to handle incompressible page for that. > > > > > > zram_bvec_rw > > > zram_bvec_write > > > if (comp_len >= huge_class) > > > zs_page_writeback > > > down_read(&zram->init_lock) or some other way > > > > > > It's just idea for incompressible page but we might intorduce > > > the way for other compresible pages, too at some condition. > > (sorry for the top post before) > > Hi Minchan, > I guess the point I was trying to make was that so long as we allow a > reset operation we'll need to be taking the init lock in read mode > before doing any writeback. Does that seem right? It's true and it introduced many lock dependency problems before. We actually had the lock in the rw path but we removed the lock so without strong reason, I'd like to avoid the lock in the rw path. commit 08eee69fcf6b Author: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> Date: Thu Feb 12 15:00:45 2015 -0800 zram: remove init_lock in zram_make_request Admin could reset zram during I/O operation going on so we have used zram->init_lock as read-side lock in I/O path to prevent sudden zram meta freeing. However, the init_lock is really troublesome. We can't do call zram_meta_alloc under init_lock due to lockdep splat because zram_rw_page is one of the function under reclaim path and hold it as read_lock while other places in process context hold it as write_lock. So, we have used allocation out of the lock to avoid lockdep warn but it's not good for readability and fainally, I met another lockdep splat between init_lock and cpu_hotplug from kmem_cache_destroy during working zsmalloc compaction. :( Yes, the ideal is to remove horrible init_lock of zram in rw path. This patch removes it in rw path and instead, add atomic refcount for meta lifetime management and completion to free meta in process context. It's important to free meta in process context because some of resource destruction needs mutex lock, which could be held if we releases the resource in reclaim context so it's deadlock, again. As a bonus, we could remove init_done check in rw path because zram_meta_get will do a role for it, instead.
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 12:37 PM Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 11:18:38AM -0400, Brian Geffon wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 4:55 PM Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 02:40:52PM -0400, Brian Geffon wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 2:29 PM Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 11:16:27AM -0700, Brian Geffon wrote: > > > > > > > There does not appear to be a technical reason to not > > > > > > > allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the > > > > > > > zram device is initialized. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned > > > > > > > as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that > > > > > > > event backing_dev would return -EEXIST. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 6 +++--- > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > > > > > > index fcaf2750f68f..12b4555ee079 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > > > > > > @@ -462,9 +462,9 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev, > > > > > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > down_write(&zram->init_lock); > > > > > > > - if (init_done(zram)) { > > > > > > > - pr_info("Can't setup backing device for initialized device\n"); > > > > > > > - err = -EBUSY; > > > > > > > + if (zram->backing_dev) { > > > > > > > + pr_info("Backing device is already assigned\n"); > > > > > > > + err = -EEXIST; > > > > > > > goto out; > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Brian, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Minchan, > > > > > > > > > > > I am worry about the inconsistency with other interface of current zram > > > > > > set up. They were supposed to set it up before zram disksize setting > > > > > > because it makes code more simple/maintainalbe in that we don't need > > > > > > to check some feature on the fly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's think about when zram extends the writeback of incompressible > > > > > > page on demand. The write path will need the backing_dev under > > > > > > down_read(&zarm->init_lock) or other conditional variable to check > > > > > > whether the feature is enabled or not on the fly. > > > > > > > > > > I don't follow what you mean by that, writeback_store already holds > > > > > down_read(&zarm->init_lock). > > > > > > > > I should have explained a bit more. Sorry about that. > > > > I am thinking about a feature to deal with incompressible page. > > > > Let's have an example to handle incompressible page for that. > > > > > > > > zram_bvec_rw > > > > zram_bvec_write > > > > if (comp_len >= huge_class) > > > > zs_page_writeback > > > > down_read(&zram->init_lock) or some other way > > > > > > > > It's just idea for incompressible page but we might intorduce > > > > the way for other compresible pages, too at some condition. > > > > (sorry for the top post before) > > > > Hi Minchan, > > I guess the point I was trying to make was that so long as we allow a > > reset operation we'll need to be taking the init lock in read mode > > before doing any writeback. Does that seem right? > > It's true and it introduced many lock dependency problems before. > We actually had the lock in the rw path but we removed the lock > so without strong reason, I'd like to avoid the lock in the rw path. Hi Minchan, Thank you very much for taking the time to explain! We can drop this patch. Brian > > commit 08eee69fcf6b > Author: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> > Date: Thu Feb 12 15:00:45 2015 -0800 > > zram: remove init_lock in zram_make_request > > Admin could reset zram during I/O operation going on so we have used > zram->init_lock as read-side lock in I/O path to prevent sudden zram > meta freeing. > > However, the init_lock is really troublesome. We can't do call > zram_meta_alloc under init_lock due to lockdep splat because > zram_rw_page is one of the function under reclaim path and hold it as > read_lock while other places in process context hold it as write_lock. > So, we have used allocation out of the lock to avoid lockdep warn but > it's not good for readability and fainally, I met another lockdep splat > between init_lock and cpu_hotplug from kmem_cache_destroy during working > zsmalloc compaction. :( > > Yes, the ideal is to remove horrible init_lock of zram in rw path. This > patch removes it in rw path and instead, add atomic refcount for meta > lifetime management and completion to free meta in process context. > It's important to free meta in process context because some of resource > destruction needs mutex lock, which could be held if we releases the > resource in reclaim context so it's deadlock, again. > > As a bonus, we could remove init_done check in rw path because > zram_meta_get will do a role for it, instead.
diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c index fcaf2750f68f..12b4555ee079 100644 --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c @@ -462,9 +462,9 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev, return -ENOMEM; down_write(&zram->init_lock); - if (init_done(zram)) { - pr_info("Can't setup backing device for initialized device\n"); - err = -EBUSY; + if (zram->backing_dev) { + pr_info("Backing device is already assigned\n"); + err = -EEXIST; goto out; }
There does not appear to be a technical reason to not allow the zram backing device to be assigned after the zram device is initialized. This change will allow for the backing device to be assigned as long as no backing device is already assigned. In that event backing_dev would return -EEXIST. Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com> --- drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)