Message-ID: <38dbe660-24fe-812f-d66f-1329c2d3aacb@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2017 15:17:04 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "karam . lee" <karam.lee@....com>,
        Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
        Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>, seungho1.park@....com,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] remove rw_page() from brd, pmem and btt

On 08/03/2017 03:13 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 09:13:15AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> Hi Ross,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:13:59PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:31:43AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:56:01AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
>>>>> Dan Williams and Christoph Hellwig have recently expressed doubt about
>>>>> whether the rw_page() interface made sense for synchronous memory drivers
>>>>> [1][2].  It's unclear whether this interface has any performance benefit
>>>>> for these drivers, but as we continue to fix bugs it is clear that it does
>>>>> have a maintenance burden.  This series removes the rw_page()
>>>>> implementations in brd, pmem and btt to relieve this burden.
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you measure whether it has performance benefits?  I don't
>>>> understand why zram would see performance benefits and not other drivers.
>>>> If it's going to be removed, then the whole interface should be removed,
>>>> not just have the implementations removed from some drivers.
>>>
>>> Okay, I've run a bunch of performance tests with the PMEM and with BTT entry
>>> points for rw_pages() in a swap workload, and in all cases I do see an
>>> improvement over the code when rw_pages() is removed.  Here are the results
>>> from my random lab box:
>>>
>>>   Average latency of swap_writepage()
>>> +------+------------+---------+-------------+
>>> |      | no rw_page | rw_page | Improvement |
>>> +-------------------------------------------+
>>> | PMEM |  5.0 us    |  4.7 us |     6%      |
>>> +-------------------------------------------+
>>> |  BTT |  6.8 us    |  6.1 us |    10%      |
>>> +------+------------+---------+-------------+
>>>
>>>   Average latency of swap_readpage()
>>> +------+------------+---------+-------------+
>>> |      | no rw_page | rw_page | Improvement |
>>> +-------------------------------------------+
>>> | PMEM |  3.3 us    |  2.9 us |    12%      |
>>> +-------------------------------------------+
>>> |  BTT |  3.7 us    |  3.4 us |     8%      |
>>> +------+------------+---------+-------------+
>>>
>>> The workload was pmbench, a memory benchmark, run on a system where I had
>>> severely restricted the amount of memory in the system with the 'mem' kernel
>>> command line parameter.  The benchmark was set up to test more memory than I
>>> allowed the OS to have so it spilled over into swap.
>>>
>>> The PMEM or BTT device was set up as my swap device, and during the test I got
>>> a few hundred thousand samples of each of swap_writepage() and
>>> swap_writepage().  The PMEM/BTT device was just memory reserved with the
>>> memmap kernel command line parameter.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Matthew, for asking for performance data.  It looks like removing this
>>> code would have been a mistake.
>>
>> By suggestion of Christoph Hellwig, I made a quick patch which does IO without
>> dynamic bio allocation for swap IO. Actually, it's not formal patch to be
>> worth to send mainline yet but I believe it's enough to test the improvement.
>>
>> Could you test patchset on pmem and btt without rw_page?
>>
>> For working the patch, block drivers need to declare it's synchronous IO
>> device via BDI_CAP_SYNC but if it's hard, you can just make every swap IO
>> comes from (sis->flags & SWP_SYNC_IO) with removing condition check
>>
>> if (!(sis->flags & SWP_SYNC_IO)) in swap_[read|write]page.
>>
>> Patchset is based on 4.13-rc3.
> 
> Thanks for the patch, here are the updated results from my test box:
> 
>  Average latency of swap_writepage()
> +------+------------+---------+---------+
> |      | no rw_page | minchan | rw_page |
> +----------------------------------------
> | PMEM |  5.0 us    | 4.98 us |  4.7 us |
> +----------------------------------------
> |  BTT |  6.8 us    | 6.3 us  |  6.1 us |
> +------+------------+---------+---------+
>   				   
>  Average latency of swap_readpage()
> +------+------------+---------+---------+
> |      | no rw_page | minchan | rw_page |
> +----------------------------------------
> | PMEM |  3.3 us    | 3.27 us |  2.9 us |
> +----------------------------------------
> |  BTT |  3.7 us    | 3.44 us |  3.4 us |
> +------+------------+---------+---------+
> 
> I've added another digit in precision in some cases to help differentiate the
> various results.
> 
> In all cases your patches did perform better than with the regularly allocated
> BIO, but again for all cases the rw_page() path was the fastest, even if only
> marginally.

IMHO, the win needs to be pretty substantial to justify keeping a
parallel read/write path in the kernel. The recent work of making
O_DIRECT faster is exactly the same as what Minchan did here for sync
IO. I would greatly prefer one fast path, instead of one fast and one
that's just a little faster for some things. It's much better to get
everyone behind one path/stack, and make that as fast as it can be.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Powered by blists - more mailing lists