Message-ID: <20170804081740.GA2083@bbox>
Date:   Fri, 4 Aug 2017 17:17:40 +0900
From:   Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:     Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
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>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        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 Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 12:54:41PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 03:13:35PM -0600, 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.
> 
> Thanks for the testing. Your testing number is within noise level?
> 
> I cannot understand why PMEM doesn't have enough gain while BTT is significant
> win(8%). I guess no rw_page with BTT testing had more chances to wait bio dynamic
> allocation and mine and rw_page testing reduced it significantly. However,
> in no rw_page with pmem, there wasn't many cases to wait bio allocations due
> to the device is so fast so the number comes from purely the number of
> instructions has done. At a quick glance of bio init/submit, it's not trivial
> so indeed, i understand where the 12% enhancement comes from but I'm not sure
> it's really big difference in real practice at the cost of maintaince burden.

I tested pmbench 10 times in my local machine(4 core) with zram-swap.
In my machine, even, on-stack bio is faster than rw_page. Unbelievable.

I guess it's really hard to get stable result in severe memory pressure.
It would be a result within noise level(see below stddev).
So, I think it's hard to conclude rw_page is far faster than onstack-bio.

rw_page
avg     5.54us
stddev  8.89%
max     6.02us
min     4.20us

onstack bio
avg     5.27us
stddev  13.03%
max     5.96us
min     3.55us

Powered by blists - more mailing lists