Very deep RB tree requires rebalance at times.  That contributes to the
zswap fault latencies.  Xarray does not need to perform tree rebalance. 
Replacing RB tree to xarray can have some small performance gain.

One small difference is that xarray insert might fail with ENOMEM, while
RB tree insert does not allocate additional memory.

The zswap_entry size will reduce a bit due to removing the RB node, which
has two pointers and a color field.  Xarray store the pointer in the
xarray tree rather than the zswap_entry.  Every entry has one pointer from
the xarray tree.  Overall, switching to xarray should save some memory, if
the swap entries are densely packed.

Notice the zswap_rb_search and zswap_rb_insert often followed by
zswap_rb_erase.  Use xa_erase and xa_store directly.  That saves one tree
lookup as well.

Remove zswap_invalidate_entry due to no need to call zswap_rb_erase any
more.  Use zswap_free_entry instead.

The "struct zswap_tree" has been replaced by "struct xarray".  The tree
spin lock has transferred to the xarray lock.

Run the kernel build testing 5 times for each version, averages:
(memory.max=2GB, zswap shrinker and writeback enabled, one 50GB swapfile,
24 HT core, 32 jobs)

           mm-unstable-4aaccadb5c04     xarray v9
user       3548.902 			3534.375
sys        522.232                      520.976
real       202.796                      200.864

[chrisl@kernel.org: restore original comment "erase" to "invalidate"]
  Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240326-zswap-xarray-v10-1-bf698417c968@kernel.org
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240326-zswap-xarray-v9-1-d2891a65dfc7@kernel.orgSigned-off-by: Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Reviewed-by: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>
Cc: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
Cc: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>