From: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Kelley Nielsen <kelleynnn@gmail.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
josh@joshtriplett.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, opw-kernel@googlegroups.com,
jamieliu@google.com, sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] mm:prototype for the updated swapoff implementation
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:07:28 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5310D060.1090504@surriel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1402271054390.7000@eggly.anvils>
On 02/27/2014 07:33 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Kelley Nielsen wrote:
>
>> The function try_to_unuse() is of quadratic complexity, with a lot of
>> wasted effort. It unuses swap entries one by one, potentially iterating
>> over all the page tables for all the processes in the system for each
>> one.
>
> You've chosen a good target, and I like the look of what you've done.
> But I'm afraid it will have to get uglier before it's ready, and I'm
> unsure whether your approach will prove to be a clear win or not.
I am more optimistic than you, because I have seen swapoff
on my Nehalem system proceed at under 1MB/s for several hours,
to clear maybe 3-4GB of stuff out of swap :)
>> This new proposed implementation of try_to_unuse simplifies its
>> complexity to linear. It iterates over the system's mms once, unusing
>> all the affected entries as it walks each set of page tables. It also
>> makes similar changes to shmem_unuse.
>>
>> Improvement
>>
>> swapoff was called on a swap partition containing about 50M of data,
>> and calls to the function unuse_pte_range were counted.
>>
>> Present implementation....about 22.5M calls.
>> Prototype.................about 7.0K calls.
>
> That's nice, but mostly it's the time spent that matters.
>
> I should explain why we've left the try_to_unuse() implementation as is
> for so many years: it's a matter of tradeoff between fast cpu and slow
> seeking disk.
> I'll be surprised if your approach does not improve swapoff from SSD
> (and brd and zram and zswap) very significantly; but the case to worry
> about is swapoff from hard disk. You are changing swapoff to use the
> cpu much more efficiently; but now that you no longer move linearly up
> the swap_map, you are making the disk head seek around very much more.
I suspect proper read-around of the swap area should take care of
IO patterns well enough. The quadratic nature of the current
try_to_unuse search can easily slow things down to comically low
speeds...
--
All rights reversed.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-28 18:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-19 0:35 [RFC] mm:prototype for the updated swapoff implementation Kelley Nielsen
2014-02-19 21:27 ` Andrew Morton
2014-02-19 21:39 ` Rik van Riel
2014-02-19 23:08 ` [OPW kernel] " Josh Triplett
2014-02-19 23:42 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-02-25 20:14 ` Rik van Riel
2014-02-28 0:33 ` Hugh Dickins
2014-02-28 18:07 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5310D060.1090504@surriel.com \
--to=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=jamieliu@google.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=kelleynnn@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=opw-kernel@googlegroups.com \
--cc=sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).