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

[Nhat Pham]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 9:44 AM Nhat Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> TBH, I think the spinlock is simpler at this point if we need to do
> all of this explanation to justify correctness of cmpxchg :)
>
> That said, if memcg folks feel like an extra spinlock per cgroup is a
> bit much, we can go with the cmpxchg() approach. Please include a FAT
> comment explains the compxchg() approach's nuance in the code though.
> Speaking from experience, I will forget why it is correct 2 months
> after the patch lands :)

Another alternative is - can we repurpose any lock here? Locks seem to
be per-lruvec or per-node, unfortunately, and we need something
per-cgroup hmmmm.