[PATCH] mm: zswap: return -ENOENT when the swap device is gone

[PATCH] mm: zswap: return -ENOENT when the swap device is gone

[Baoquan He]

zswap_writeback_entry() returns -EEXIST when get_swap_device() finds no
device.  -EEXIST is the shrinker's "page already in swap cache" signal,
which makes zswap_shrinker_scan() stop shrinking entirely.  A NULL
get_swap_device() instead means the device is being swapped off, so the
entry is simply stale.

Return -ENOENT so the shrinker skips the stale entry and keeps scanning.
Independent of xswap; affects all swap devices.

Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <hebaoquan@kylinos.cn>
Acked-by: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>
---
Note:
This is taken from xswap patchset. Nhat suggested this is a fix, should
be sent out independently.

 mm/zswap.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c
index 37f34e406c8e..b9948d4657d2 100644
--- a/mm/zswap.c
+++ b/mm/zswap.c
@@ -998,7 +998,7 @@ static int zswap_writeback_entry(struct zswap_entry *entry,
 	/* try to allocate swap cache folio */
 	si = get_swap_device(swpentry);
 	if (!si)
-		return -EEXIST;
+		return -ENOENT;
 
 	mpol = get_task_policy(current);
 	folio = swap_cache_alloc_folio(swpentry, GFP_KERNEL, BIT(0), NULL, mpol,
-- 
2.54.0

Re: [PATCH] mm: zswap: return -ENOENT when the swap device is gone

[Andrew Morton]

On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 14:30:31 +0800 Baoquan He <hebaoquan@kylinos.cn> wrote:

> zswap_writeback_entry() returns -EEXIST when get_swap_device() finds no
> device.  -EEXIST is the shrinker's "page already in swap cache" signal,
> which makes zswap_shrinker_scan() stop shrinking entirely.  A NULL
> get_swap_device() instead means the device is being swapped off, so the
> entry is simply stale.
> 
> Return -ENOENT so the shrinker skips the stale entry and keeps scanning.
> Independent of xswap; affects all swap devices.

I'm struggling to understand the userspace-visible runtime effects of this.

I see that reclaim will prematurely abort, but is this a once-off thing
which will resolve on the next reclaim attempt, or will the reclaim
failure persist for a significant period?

Re: [PATCH] mm: zswap: return -ENOENT when the swap device is gone

[Andrew Morton]

On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 14:30:31 +0800 Baoquan He <hebaoquan@kylinos.cn> wrote:

> zswap_writeback_entry() returns -EEXIST when get_swap_device() finds no
> device.  -EEXIST is the shrinker's "page already in swap cache" signal,
> which makes zswap_shrinker_scan() stop shrinking entirely.  A NULL
> get_swap_device() instead means the device is being swapped off, so the
> entry is simply stale.
> 
> Return -ENOENT so the shrinker skips the stale entry and keeps scanning.
> Independent of xswap; affects all swap devices.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/zswap.c
> +++ b/mm/zswap.c
> @@ -998,7 +998,7 @@ static int zswap_writeback_entry(struct zswap_entry *entry,
>  	/* try to allocate swap cache folio */

Comment was always lame ("say why, not what").  It now seems flat out wrong?

>  	si = get_swap_device(swpentry);
>  	if (!si)
> -		return -EEXIST;
> +		return -ENOENT;

mm-new has changed.  I made this


	/* try to allocate swap cache folio */
	si = get_swap_device(swpentry);
	if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(si))
		return -ENOENT;

Re: [PATCH] mm: zswap: return -ENOENT when the swap device is gone

[Baoquan He]

On 09/13/26 at 12:48am, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 14:30:31 +0800 Baoquan He <hebaoquan@kylinos.cn> wrote:
> 
> > zswap_writeback_entry() returns -EEXIST when get_swap_device() finds no
> > device.  -EEXIST is the shrinker's "page already in swap cache" signal,
> > which makes zswap_shrinker_scan() stop shrinking entirely.  A NULL
> > get_swap_device() instead means the device is being swapped off, so the
> > entry is simply stale.
> > 
> > Return -ENOENT so the shrinker skips the stale entry and keeps scanning.
> > Independent of xswap; affects all swap devices.
> 
> I'm struggling to understand the userspace-visible runtime effects of this.
> 
> I see that reclaim will prematurely abort, but is this a once-off thing
> which will resolve on the next reclaim attempt, or will the reclaim
> failure persist for a significant period?

Not a one-off, and not permanent either: it lasts the whole swapoff.

Assume I have two swap disks. zswap is enabled. By default 20% of RAM is
the zswap upper limit. So now if I swapoff /dev/vdb, at the same time
reclaimer call shrinker to writeback, -EEXIST makes shrink_memcg_cb()
return LRU_STOP, which ends the shrink pass right there. get_swap_device()
returns NULL for an entry whose device is gone, so every such entry still
on the zswap LRU stops a pass where it stands. The pool gets almost nothing
written back for the length of the swapoff.

# swapon
NAME     TYPE      SIZE USED PRIO
/dev/vdb partition   4G   0B   -1
/dev/vdc partition   2G   0B   -1

The entry is rotated before writeback, so later passes get past it. It is
a throughput collapse, not a deadlock.

static enum lru_status shrink_memcg_cb(struct list_head *item, struct list_lru_one *l,
                                       void *arg)
{
	......
	list_move_tail(item, &l->list);
	......
	writeback_result = zswap_writeback_entry(entry, swpentry);
	......
}

I can't reproduce it now. And I forget how I met this, just did too many
tiems of testing and code change. this probably comes from reading the
code. So this may be a logic bug that rarely happens rather than a easily
seen regression.

Thanks
Baoquan

Re: [PATCH] mm: zswap: return -ENOENT when the swap device is gone

[Baoquan He]

On 09/13/26 at 12:51am, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 14:30:31 +0800 Baoquan He <hebaoquan@kylinos.cn> wrote:
> 
> > zswap_writeback_entry() returns -EEXIST when get_swap_device() finds no
> > device.  -EEXIST is the shrinker's "page already in swap cache" signal,
> > which makes zswap_shrinker_scan() stop shrinking entirely.  A NULL
> > get_swap_device() instead means the device is being swapped off, so the
> > entry is simply stale.
> > 
> > Return -ENOENT so the shrinker skips the stale entry and keeps scanning.
> > Independent of xswap; affects all swap devices.
> > 
> > ...
> >
> > --- a/mm/zswap.c
> > +++ b/mm/zswap.c
> > @@ -998,7 +998,7 @@ static int zswap_writeback_entry(struct zswap_entry *entry,
> >  	/* try to allocate swap cache folio */
> 
> Comment was always lame ("say why, not what").  It now seems flat out wrong?

Agree, the comment should be moved down to be cloe to
"mpol = get_task_policy(current);" line.

> 
> >  	si = get_swap_device(swpentry);
> >  	if (!si)
> > -		return -EEXIST;
> > +		return -ENOENT;
> 
> mm-new has changed.  I made this

Thanks. Does it need a v2? or just use ther version you tuned.

By the way, which mm branch is suggested to take as a base for mm
patches posting? I usually take mm-unstable branch, seems it's changed
to mm-new now?

> 
> 
> 	/* try to allocate swap cache folio */
> 	si = get_swap_device(swpentry);
> 	if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(si))
> 		return -ENOENT;
> 
>