Message-ID: <9be88e63-9fc3-108a-4b2e-5185b1938d36@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Apr 2020 14:18:16 -0700
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] swap: Try to scan more free slots even when fragmented



On 4/26/20 8:00 PM, Huang Ying wrote:
> Now, the scalability of swap code will drop much when the swap device
> becomes fragmented, because the swap slots allocation batching stops
> working.  To solve the problem, in this patch, we will try to scan a
> little more swap slots with restricted effort to batch the swap slots
> allocation even if the swap device is fragmented.  Test shows that the
> benchmark score can increase up to 37.1% with the patch.  Details are
> as follows.
> 
> The swap code has a per-cpu cache of swap slots.  These batch swap
> space allocations to improve swap subsystem scaling.  In the following
> code path,
> 
>   add_to_swap()
>     get_swap_page()
>       refill_swap_slots_cache()
>         get_swap_pages()
> 	  scan_swap_map_slots()
> 
> scan_swap_map_slots() and get_swap_pages() can return multiple swap
> slots for each call.  These slots will be cached in the per-CPU swap
> slots cache, so that several following swap slot requests will be
> fulfilled there to avoid the lock contention in the lower level swap
> space allocation/freeing code path.
> 
> But this only works when there are free swap clusters.  If a swap
> device becomes so fragmented that there's no free swap clusters,
> scan_swap_map_slots() and get_swap_pages() will return only one swap
> slot for each call in the above code path.  Effectively, this falls
> back to the situation before the swap slots cache was introduced, the
> heavy lock contention on the swap related locks kills the scalability.
> 
> Why does it work in this way?  Because the swap device could be large,
> and the free swap slot scanning could be quite time consuming, to
> avoid taking too much time to scanning free swap slots, the
> conservative method was used.
> 
> In fact, this can be improved via scanning a little more free slots
> with strictly restricted effort.  Which is implemented in this patch.
> In scan_swap_map_slots(), after the first free swap slot is gotten, we
> will try to scan a little more, but only if we haven't scanned too
> many slots (< LATENCY_LIMIT).  That is, the added scanning latency is
> strictly restricted.
> 
> To test the patch, we have run 16-process pmbench memory benchmark on
> a 2-socket server machine with 48 cores.  Multiple ram disks are
> configured as the swap devices.  The pmbench working-set size is much
> larger than the available memory so that swapping is triggered.  The
> memory read/write ratio is 80/20 and the accessing pattern is random,
> so the swap space becomes highly fragmented during the test.  In the
> original implementation, the lock contention on swap related locks is
> very heavy.  The perf profiling data of the lock contention code path
> is as following,
> 
> _raw_spin_lock.get_swap_pages.get_swap_page.add_to_swap:             21.03
> _raw_spin_lock_irq.shrink_inactive_list.shrink_lruvec.shrink_node:    1.92
> _raw_spin_lock_irq.shrink_active_list.shrink_lruvec.shrink_node:      1.72
> _raw_spin_lock.free_pcppages_bulk.drain_pages_zone.drain_pages:       0.69
> 
> While after applying this patch, it becomes,
> 
> _raw_spin_lock_irq.shrink_inactive_list.shrink_lruvec.shrink_node:    4.89
> _raw_spin_lock_irq.shrink_active_list.shrink_lruvec.shrink_node:      3.85
> _raw_spin_lock.free_pcppages_bulk.drain_pages_zone.drain_pages:       1.1
> _raw_spin_lock_irqsave.pagevec_lru_move_fn.__lru_cache_add.do_swap_page: 0.88
> 
> That is, the lock contention on the swap locks is eliminated.
> 
> And the pmbench score increases 37.1%.  The swapin throughput
> increases 45.7% from 2.02 GB/s to 2.94 GB/s.  While the swapout
> throughput increases 45.3% from 2.04 GB/s to 2.97 GB/s.
> 

Thanks.  Acked-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>

Tim

> Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
> Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists