Re: [PATCH 3/8] mm/zsmalloc: Introduce objcgs pointer in struct zpdesc

[Harry Yoo]

On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 07:48:06AM -0800, Joshua Hahn wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 12:49:44 +0900 Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 11:29:26AM -0800, Joshua Hahn wrote:
> > > Introduce an array of struct obj_cgroup pointers to zpdesc to keep track
> > > of compressed objects' memcg ownership.
> > > 
> > > The 8 bytes required to add the array in struct zpdesc brings its size
> > > up from 56 bytes to 64 bytes. However, in the current implementation,
> > > struct zpdesc lays on top of struct page[1]. This allows the increased
> > > size to remain invisible to the outside, since 64 bytes are used for
> > > struct zpdesc anyways.
> > > 
> > > The newly added obj_cgroup array pointer overlays page->memcg_data,
> > > which causes problems for functions that try to perform page charging by
> > > checking the zeroness of page->memcg_data. To make sure that the
> > > backing zpdesc's obj_cgroup ** is not interpreted as a mem_cgroup *,
> > > follow SLUB's lead and use the MEMCG_DATA_OBJEXTS bit to tag the pointer.
> > > 
> > > Consumers of zsmalloc that do not perform memcg accounting (i.e. zram)
> > > are completely unaffected by this patch, as the array to track the
> > > obj_cgroup pointers are only allocated in the zswap path.
> > > 
> > > This patch temporarily increases the memory used by zswap by 8 bytes
> > > per zswap_entry, since the obj_cgroup pointer is duplicated in the
> > > zpdesc and in zswap_entry. In the following patches, we will redirect
> > > memory charging operations to use the zpdesc's obj_cgroup instead, and
> > > remove the pointer from zswap_entry. This will leave no net memory usage
> > > increase for both zram and zswap.
> > > 
> > > In this patch, allocate / free the objcg pointer array for the zswap
> > > path, and handle partial object migration and full zpdesc migration.
> > > 
> > > [1] In the (near) future, struct zpdesc may no longer overlay struct
> > > page as we shift towards using memdescs. When this happens, the size
> > > increase of struct zpdesc will no longer free. With that said, the
> > > difference can be kept minimal.
> > > 
> > > All the changes that are being implemented are currently guarded under
> > > CONFIG_MEMCG. We can optionally minimize the impact on zram users by
> > > guarding these changes in CONFIG_MEMCG && CONFIG_ZSWAP as well.
> > > 
> > > Suggested-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 10 ++---
> > >  include/linux/zsmalloc.h      |  2 +-
> > >  mm/zpdesc.h                   | 25 +++++++++++-
> > >  mm/zsmalloc.c                 | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > >  mm/zswap.c                    |  2 +-
> > >  5 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > @@ -893,6 +898,43 @@ static void init_zspage(struct size_class *class, struct zspage *zspage)
> > >  	set_freeobj(zspage, 0);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> > > +static bool alloc_zspage_objcgs(struct size_class *class, gfp_t gfp,
> > > +				struct zpdesc *zpdescs[])
> > > +{
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Add 2 to objcgs_per_zpdesc to account for partial objs that may be
> > > +	 * stored at the beginning or end of the zpdesc.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	int objcgs_per_zpdesc = (PAGE_SIZE / class->size) + 2;
> > > +	int i;
> > > +	struct obj_cgroup **objcgs;
> > 
> > Just wondering, perhaps it makes more sense to have an array of
> > objcg pointers for each zspage (of size objs_per_zspage)?
> 
> Hi Harry! I hope you are doing well, thanks for taking a look : -)
> 
> Hmm, I think you might be right. For context, one of the first
> ideas I had for this patch was to have a per-zspage array, but store
> it in the first zpdesc. As you can imagine this was not a good idea...
> (head zpdesc page and tail zpdesc page? ;) )

Yeah that's not good ;)

> But! storing it in the zspage struct makes a lot more sense to me.
> And I think we can actually simplify the migration pathways as well.
> 
> My immediate response to this was that "subzpdesc swap ins/outs would
> be difficult" since right now we can just move the pointer, but
> if we have a per-zspage array, we actually don't have to do any
> objcgs pointer migration at all.

Right.

> And I think the cross-boundary cases are handled a lot beter by having
> a per-zpdesc array too. We also don't have to convert the per-zspage
> obj_idx into a per-zpdesc obj_idx as well, I think if we do this...

Right.

> Let me mull on this for a bit : -) I'll give a shot at implementing
> it this way, I think it makes sense!
> 
> Thanks again for taking a look, Harry. Have a great day!

Happy to help (hehe, it just looked a bit more natural),
have a good day!

> Joshua

-- 
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon