Re: [PATCH 2/2] zram: do not count duplicated pages as compressed

[Minchan Kim]

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 02:45:33PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (05/16/17 14:26), Minchan Kim wrote:
> [..]
> > > +       /*
> > > +        * Free memory associated with this sector
> > > +        * before overwriting unused sectors.
> > > +        */
> > > +       zram_slot_lock(zram, index);
> > > +       zram_free_page(zram, index);
> > 
> > Hmm, zram_free should happen only if the write is done successfully.
> > Otherwise, we lose the valid data although write IO was fail.
> 
> but would this be correct? the data is not valid - we failed to store
> the valid one. but instead we assure application that read()/swapin/etc.,
> depending on the usage scenario, is successful (even though the data is
> not what application really expects to see), application tries to use the
> data from that page and probably crashes (dunno, for example page contained
> hash tables with pointers that are not valid anymore, etc. etc.).
> 
> I'm not optimistic about stale data reads; it basically will look like
> data corruption to the application.

Hmm, I don't understand what you say.
My point is zram_free_page should be done only if whoe write operation
is successful.
With you change, following situation can happens.

write block 4, 'all A' -> success
read  block 4, 'all A' verified -> Good
write block 4, 'all B' -> but failed with ENOMEM
read  block 4  expected 'all A' but 'all 0' -> Oops

It is the problem what I pointed out.
If I miss something, could you elaborate it a bit?

Thanks!

> 
> > > +
> > >         if (zram_same_page_write(zram, index, page))
> > > -               return 0;
> > > +               goto out_unlock;
> > >  
> > >         entry = zram_dedup_find(zram, page, &checksum);
> > >         if (entry) {
> > >                 comp_len = entry->len;
> > > +               zram_set_flag(zram, index, ZRAM_DUP);
> >
> > In case of hitting dedup, we shouldn't increase compr_data_size.
> 
> no, we should not. you are right. my "... patch" is incomplete and
> wrong. please don't pay too much attention to it.
> 
> 
> > If we fix above two problems, do you think it's still cleaner?
> > (I don't mean to be reluctant with your suggestion. Just a
> >  real question to know your thought.:)
> 
> do you mean code duplication and stale data read?
> 
> I'd probably prefer to address stale data reads separately.
> but it seems that stale reads fix will re-do parts of your
> 0002 patch and, at least potentially, reduce code duplication.
> 
> so we can go with your 0002 and then stale reads fix will try
> to reduce code duplication (unless we want to have 4 places doing
> the same thing :) )
> 
> 	-ss