Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm/zswap: optimize the scalability of zswap rb-tree

[Nhat Pham]

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 4:18 PM Chris Li <chrisl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Yosry,
>
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 3:48 PM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Currently the xarray patch should have everything it takes to use RCU
> > > read lock. However taking out the tree spinlock is more work than
> > > previously. If we are going to remove the tree spinlock, I think we
> > > should revert back to doing a zswap tree lookup and return the zswap
> > > entry with reference increased. The tree mapping can still decouple
> > > from the zswap entry reference count drop to zero.  Anyway, my V1 of
> > > the xarray patch will not include removing the tree spinlock.
> >
> > Interesting. What do you mean by removing the tree spinlock? My
> > assumption was that the xarray reduces lock contention because we do
> > not need a lock to do lookups, but we still need the lock otherwise.
> > Did you have something in mind to completely remove the tree lock?
>
> In my current xarray series, it adds the xarray alongside the rb tree.

Hmmm why? Is there a reason to keep the rb tree around?