Date:   Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:49:21 +0800
From:   "ying.huang@...el.com" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: swap: determine swap device by using page nid

On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 16:33 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 10:36:54AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 1:12 AM Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 07:09:53PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > > The swap devices are linked to per node priority lists, the swap device
> > > > closer to the node has higher priority on that node's priority list.
> > > > This is supposed to improve I/O latency, particularly for some fast
> > > > devices.  But the current code gets nid by calling numa_node_id() which
> > > > actually returns the nid that the reclaimer is running on instead of the
> > > > nid that the page belongs to.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Right.
> > > 
> > > > Pass the page's nid dow to get_swap_pages() in order to pick up the
> > > > right swap device.  But it doesn't work for the swap slots cache which
> > > > is per cpu.  We could skip swap slots cache if the current node is not
> > > > the page's node, but it may be overkilling. So keep using the current
> > > > node's swap slots cache.  The issue was found by visual code inspection
> > > > so it is not sure how much improvement could be achieved due to lack of
> > > > suitable testing device.  But anyway the current code does violate the
> > > > design.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I intentionally used the reclaimer's nid because I think when swapping
> > > out to a device, it is faster when the device is on the same node as
> > > the cpu.
> > 
> > OK, the offline discussion with Huang Ying showed the design was to
> > have page's nid in order to achieve better I/O performance (more
> > noticeable on faster devices) since the reclaimer may be running on a
> > different node from the reclaimed page.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Anyway, I think I can make a test case where the workload allocates all
> > > its memory on the remote node and its workingset memory is larger then
> > > the available memory so swap is triggered, then we can see which way
> > > achieves better performance. Sounds reasonable to you?
> > 
> > Yeah, definitely, thank you so much. I don't have a fast enough device
> > by hand to show the difference right now. If you could get some data
> > it would be perfect.
> > 
> 
> Failed to find a test box that has two NVMe disks attached to different
> nodes and since Shanghai is locked down right now, we couldn't install
> another NVMe on the box so I figured it might be OK to test on a box that
> has a single NVMe attached to node 0 like this:
> 
> 1) restrict the test processes to run on node 0 and allocate on node 1;
> 2) restrict the test processes to run on node 1 and allocate on node 0.
> 
> In case 1), the reclaimer's node id is the same as the swap device's so
> it's the same as current behaviour and in case 2), the page's node id is
> the same as the swap device's so it's what your patch proposed.
> 
> The test I used is vm-scalability/case-swap-w-rand:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wfg/vm-scalability.git/tree/case-swap-w-seq
> which spawns $nr_task processes and each will mmap $size and then
> randomly write to that area. I set nr_task=32 and $size=4G, so a total
> of 128G memory will be needed and I used memory.limit_in_bytes to
> restrict the available memory to 64G, to make sure swap is triggered.
> 
> The reason why cgroup is used is to avoid waking up the per-node kswapd
> which can trigger swapping with reclaimer/page/swap device all having the
> same node id.
> 
> And I don't see a measuable difference from the result:
> case1(using reclaimer's node id) vm-scalability.throughput: 10574 KB/s
> case2(using page's node id)      vm-scalability.throughput: 10567 KB/s
> 
> My interpretation of the result is, when reclaiming a remote page, it
> doesn't matter much which swap device to use if the swap device is a IO
> device.
> 
> Later Ying reminded me we have test box that has optane installed on
> different nodes so I also tested there: Icelake 2 sockets server with 2
> optane installed on each node. I did the test there like this:
> 1) restrict the test processes to run on node 0 and allocate on node 1
>    and only swapon pmem0, which is the optane backed swap device on node 0;
> 2) restrict the test processes to run on node 0 and allocate on node 1
>    and only swapon pmem1, which is the optane backed swap device on node 1.
> 
> So case 1) is current behaviour and case 2) is what your patch proposed.
> 
> With the same test and the same nr_task/size, the result is:
> case1(using reclaimer's node id) vm-scalability.throughput: 71033 KB/s
> case2(using page's node id)      vm-scalability.throughput: 58753 KB/s
> 

The per-node swap device support is more about swap-in latency than
swap-out throughput.  I suspect the test case is more about swap-out
throughput.  perf profiling can show this.

For swap-in latency, we can use pmbench, which can output latency
information.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying


[snip]

Powered by blists - more mailing lists