linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm -v3] mm, swap: Sort swap entries before free

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170418045909.GA11015@bbox>
Date:   Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:59:09 +0900
From:   Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:     "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
CC:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm -v3] mm, swap: Sort swap entries before free

Hi Huang,

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 02:49:01PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
> 
> To reduce the lock contention of swap_info_struct->lock when freeing
> swap entry.  The freed swap entries will be collected in a per-CPU
> buffer firstly, and be really freed later in batch.  During the batch
> freeing, if the consecutive swap entries in the per-CPU buffer belongs
> to same swap device, the swap_info_struct->lock needs to be
> acquired/released only once, so that the lock contention could be
> reduced greatly.  But if there are multiple swap devices, it is
> possible that the lock may be unnecessarily released/acquired because
> the swap entries belong to the same swap device are non-consecutive in
> the per-CPU buffer.
> 
> To solve the issue, the per-CPU buffer is sorted according to the swap
> device before freeing the swap entries.  Test shows that the time
> spent by swapcache_free_entries() could be reduced after the patch.
> 
> Test the patch via measuring the run time of swap_cache_free_entries()
> during the exit phase of the applications use much swap space.  The
> results shows that the average run time of swap_cache_free_entries()
> reduced about 20% after applying the patch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
> Acked-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> Cc: Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>
> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> 
> v3:
> 
> - Add some comments in code per Rik's suggestion.
> 
> v2:
> 
> - Avoid sort swap entries if there is only one swap device.
> ---
>  mm/swapfile.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
> index 90054f3c2cdc..f23c56e9be39 100644
> --- a/mm/swapfile.c
> +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
> @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@
>  #include <linux/swapfile.h>
>  #include <linux/export.h>
>  #include <linux/swap_slots.h>
> +#include <linux/sort.h>
>  
>  #include <asm/pgtable.h>
>  #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
> @@ -1065,6 +1066,13 @@ void swapcache_free(swp_entry_t entry)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static int swp_entry_cmp(const void *ent1, const void *ent2)
> +{
> +	const swp_entry_t *e1 = ent1, *e2 = ent2;
> +
> +	return (long)(swp_type(*e1) - swp_type(*e2));
> +}
> +
>  void swapcache_free_entries(swp_entry_t *entries, int n)
>  {
>  	struct swap_info_struct *p, *prev;
> @@ -1075,6 +1083,10 @@ void swapcache_free_entries(swp_entry_t *entries, int n)
>  
>  	prev = NULL;
>  	p = NULL;
> +
> +	/* Sort swap entries by swap device, so each lock is only taken once. */
> +	if (nr_swapfiles > 1)
> +		sort(entries, n, sizeof(entries[0]), swp_entry_cmp, NULL);

Let's think on other cases.

There are two swaps and they are configured by priority so a swap's usage
would be zero unless other swap used up. In case of that, this sorting
is pointless.

As well, nr_swapfiles is never decreased so if we enable multiple
swaps and then disable until a swap is remained, this sorting is
pointelss, too.

How about lazy sorting approach? IOW, if we found prev != p and,
then we can sort it.

Thanks.