Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] mm/zswap: Make shrink_worker writeback cursor per-memcg

[Hao Jia]

On 2026/5/30 09:24, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 07:45:58PM +0800, Hao Jia wrote:
> > From: Hao Jia <jiahao1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The zswap background writeback worker shrink_worker() uses a global
> > cursor zswap_next_shrink, protected by zswap_shrink_lock, to round-robin
> > across the online memcgs under root_mem_cgroup.
> >
> > Proactive writeback also wants a similar per-memcg cursor that is
> > scoped to the specified memcg, so that repeated invocations against
> > the same memcg make forward progress across its descendant memcgs
> > instead of restarting from the first child memcg each time.
>
> Is this a problem in practice?
>
> Is the concern the overhead of scanning memcgs repeatedly, or lack of
> fairness? I wonder if we should just do writeback in batches from all
> memcgs, similar to how reclaim does it, then evaluate at the end if we
> need to start over?

Not using a per-cgroup cursor will cause issues for "repeated 
small-budget calls" cases. For example, repeatedly triggering a 2MB 
writeback might result in only writing back pages from the first few 
child memcgs every time. In the worst-case scenario (where the writeback 
amount is less than WB_BATCH), it might only ever write back from the 
first child memcg.

Similar to how memory reclaim uses mem_cgroup_iter() (via struct 
mem_cgroup_reclaim_iter) and the old shrink_worker() used 
zswap_next_shrink, we need a shared cursor here.


> > Naturally, group the cursor and its protecting spinlock into a
> > zswap_wb_iter struct, and make it a member of struct mem_cgroup to
> > realize per-memcg cursor management. Accordingly, shrink_worker() now
> > uses the lock and cursor in root_mem_cgroup->zswap_wb_iter.
>
> If we really need to have per-memcg cursors (I am not a big fan), I
> think we can minimize the overhead by making the cursor updates use
> atomic cmpxchg instead of having a per-memcg lock.

Because mem_cgroup_iter() always calls css_put(&prev->css), we cannot 
simply update zswap_wb_iter.pos via cmpxchg() after calling it. Doing so 
could lead to a double css_put() issue on prev->css.

Therefore, if we switch to the cmpxchg() approach, we wouldn't be able 
to reuse the existing mem_cgroup_iter() logic. We would have to write a 
new function similar to cgroup_iter(), and its implementation might end 
up looking a bit obscure/complex.

Currently, this lock is only used in shrink_memcg(), proactive 
writeback, and mem_cgroup_css_offline(). Note that shrink_memcg() only 
acquires the lock of the root cgroup, and mem_cgroup_css_offline() is 
unlikely to be a hot path.

So, should we keep the spin_lock or go with the cmpxchg() approach?
Yosry and Nhat, what are your thoughts on this?



> > Because the cursor is now per-memcg, the offline cleanup must visit
> > every ancestor that could be holding a reference to the dying memcg.
> > Factor out __zswap_memcg_offline_cleanup() and walk from dead_memcg up
> > to the root.
>
> Another reason why I don't like per-memcg cursors. There is too much
> complexity and I wonder if it's warranted. If we stick with per-memcg
> cursors please do the refactoring in separate patches to make the
> patches easier to review.


Sorry about that. I will try to keep each patch as simple as possible in 
the next version.


Thanks,
Hao