Kairui Song ryncsn@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 2:31 AM Minchan Kim minchan@kernel.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 12:06:15PM +0800, Kairui Song wrote:
[snip]
So I think the thing is, it's getting complex because this patch wanted to make it simple and just reuse the swap cache flags.
I agree that a simple fix would be the important at this point.
Considering your description, here's my understanding of the other idea: Other method, such as increasing the swap count, haven't proven effective in your tests. The approach risk forcing racers to rely on the swap cache again and the potential performance loss in race scenario.
While I understand that simplicity is important, and performance loss in this case may be infrequent, I believe swap_count approach could be a suitable solution. What do you think?
Hi Minchan
Yes, my main concern was about simplicity and performance.
Increasing swap_count here will also race with another process from releasing swap_count to 0 (swapcache was able to sync callers in other call paths but we skipped swapcache here).
What is the consequence of the race condition?
So the right step is: 1. Lock the cluster/swap lock; 2. Check if still have swap_count == 1, bail out if not; 3. Set it to 2; __swap_duplicate can be modified to support this, it's similar to existing logics for SWAP_HAS_CACHE.
And swap freeing path will do more things, swapcache clean up needs to be handled even in the bypassing path since the racer may add it to swapcache.
Reusing SWAP_HAS_CACHE seems to make it much simpler and avoided many overhead, so I used that way in this patch, the only issue is potentially repeated page faults now.
I'm currently trying to add a SWAP_MAP_LOCK (or SWAP_MAP_SYNC, I'm bad at naming it) special value, so any racer can just spin on it to avoid all the problems, how do you think about this?
Let's try some simpler method firstly.
-- Best Regards, Huang, Ying