Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] mm: swap: Allow storage of all mTHP orders

Huang, Ying
2024-03-21T04:41:34Z

Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> writes:

> Hi Huang, Ying,
>
>
> On 12/03/2024 07:51, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> writes:
>>
>>> Multi-size THP enables performance improvements by allocating large,
>>> pte-mapped folios for anonymous memory. However I've observed that on an
>>> arm64 system running a parallel workload (e.g. kernel compilation)
>>> across many cores, under high memory pressure, the speed regresses. This
>>> is due to bottlenecking on the increased number of TLBIs added due to
>>> all the extra folio splitting when the large folios are swapped out.
>>>
>>> Therefore, solve this regression by adding support for swapping out mTHP
>>> without needing to split the folio, just like is already done for
>>> PMD-sized THP. This change only applies when CONFIG_THP_SWAP is enabled,
>>> and when the swap backing store is a non-rotating block device. These
>>> are the same constraints as for the existing PMD-sized THP swap-out
>>> support.
>>>
>>> Note that no attempt is made to swap-in (m)THP here - this is still done
>>> page-by-page, like for PMD-sized THP. But swapping-out mTHP is a
>>> prerequisite for swapping-in mTHP.
>>>
>>> The main change here is to improve the swap entry allocator so that it
>>> can allocate any power-of-2 number of contiguous entries between [1, (1
>>> << PMD_ORDER)]. This is done by allocating a cluster for each distinct
>>> order and allocating sequentially from it until the cluster is full.
>>> This ensures that we don't need to search the map and we get no
>>> fragmentation due to alignment padding for different orders in the
>>> cluster. If there is no current cluster for a given order, we attempt to
>>> allocate a free cluster from the list. If there are no free clusters, we
>>> fail the allocation and the caller can fall back to splitting the folio
>>> and allocates individual entries (as per existing PMD-sized THP
>>> fallback).
>>>
>>> The per-order current clusters are maintained per-cpu using the existing
>>> infrastructure. This is done to avoid interleving pages from different
>>> tasks, which would prevent IO being batched. This is already done for
>>> the order-0 allocations so we follow the same pattern.
>>>
>>> As is done for order-0 per-cpu clusters, the scanner now can steal
>>> order-0 entries from any per-cpu-per-order reserved cluster. This
>>> ensures that when the swap file is getting full, space doesn't get tied
>>> up in the per-cpu reserves.
>>>
>>> This change only modifies swap to be able to accept any order mTHP. It
>>> doesn't change the callers to elide doing the actual split. That will be
>>> done in separate changes.
>
> [...]
>
>>> @@ -905,17 +961,18 @@ static int scan_swap_map_slots(struct swap_info_struct *si,
>>> }
>>>
>>> if (si->swap_map[offset]) {
>>> + VM_WARN_ON(order > 0);
>>> unlock_cluster(ci);
>>> if (!n_ret)
>>> goto scan;
>>> else
>>> goto done;
>>> }
>>> - WRITE_ONCE(si->swap_map[offset], usage);
>>> - inc_cluster_info_page(si, si->cluster_info, offset);
>>> + memset(si->swap_map + offset, usage, nr_pages);
>>
>> Add barrier() here corresponds to original WRITE_ONCE()?
>> unlock_cluster(ci) may be NOP for some swap devices.
>
> Looking at this a bit more closely, I'm not sure this is needed. Even if there
> is no cluster, the swap_info is still locked, so unlocking that will act as a
> barrier. There are a number of other callsites that memset(si->swap_map) without
> an explicit barrier and with the swap_info locked.
>
> Looking at the original commit that added the WRITE_ONCE() it was worried about
> a race with reading swap_map in _swap_info_get(). But that site is now annotated
> with a data_race(), which will suppress the warning. And I don't believe there
> are any places that read swap_map locklessly and depend upon observing ordering
> between it and other state? So I think the si unlock is sufficient?
>
> I'm not planning to add barrier() here. Let me know if you disagree.

swap_map[] may be read locklessly in swap_offset_available_and_locked()
in parallel. IIUC, WRITE_ONCE() here is to make the writing take effect
as early as possible there.

>
>>
>>> + add_cluster_info_page(si, si->cluster_info, offset, nr_pages);
>>> unlock_cluster(ci);

--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying