| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <6f7210be7353d1c01dc9f872b2692b83f87f5452.camel@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 16:34:09 +0800
From: "ying.huang@...el.com" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
Cc: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>, 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 Thu, 2022-04-21 at 16:17 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 03:49:21PM +0800, ying.huang@...el.com wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> Can you elaborate the "perf profiling" part, like which perf metric can
> show this?
>
Just `perf record`, `perf report` to show where the CPU cycles are spent
with call graph information.
Then you can find most CPU cycles are for swap out or swap in. Where is
the bottleneck.
> I checked the vmstat output. Initially, it's mostly swap out, then swap
> in starts to be more and more, but swapout is always more than swapin.
>
> procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ------cpu----- -----timestamp-----
> r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa st UTC
> 20 0 0 259772032 8 2428796 0 0 2 0 365 74 1 1 98 0 0 2022-04-19 11:44:37
> 4 0 0 259149824 8 2439084 0 0 0 0 148536 22298 1 3 96 0 0 2022-04-19 11:44:38
> 35 0 0 236926192 1052 2572000 0 0 2163 2048 392940 3690 1 24 75 0 0 2022-04-19 11:44:39
> 32 0 0 205170832 1052 2572280 0 0 0 0 193095 1280 2 33 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:44:40
> 40 0 136448 192211008 1052 2439412 268 133760 0 0 532052 3571 0 40 59 0 0 2022-04-19 11:44:43
> 33 0 4224000 192182464 1052 2450936 130636 4211460 0 0 1145644 15600 1 33 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:44:44
> 32 0 6908708 192179408 1052 2460836 239456 2924392 0 0 863325 10731 1 34 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:44:45
> 33 0 9005036 192163936 1052 2469112 279200 2371924 0 0 739330 9635 1 34 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:44:46
> 32 0 10769408 192154864 1052 2476172 305516 2071440 0 0 673619 9044 1 34 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:44:47
> 32 0 12318720 192149344 1052 2482708 324312 1875224 0 0 627868 9404 1 35 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:44:48
> 33 0 13735796 192146752 1052 2488520 340684 1756308 0 0 601933 11815 1 35 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:44:49
> ... ...
> 32 0 47465984 192000400 1052 2636472 456228 652756 0 0 335570 4359 0 35 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:11
> 33 0 47652352 191996784 1052 2637932 437368 622652 0 0 328532 3627 1 35 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:12
> 33 0 47830272 191998800 1052 2639296 428224 607516 0 0 325651 3847 1 35 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:13
> 34 0 48014492 192001504 1052 2640596 441592 625308 0 0 329752 4199 1 35 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:14
> 32 0 48200960 191996240 1052 2642148 458724 645744 0 0 333806 3988 0 35 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:15
> 45 0 48379904 191991904 1052 2643576 442948 621268 0 0 329070 4529 0 35 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:16
> 33 0 48557504 191996960 1052 2644812 444420 621948 0 0 328916 7249 1 35 64 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:17
> 33 0 48729564 191995744 1052 2646272 447396 619376 0 0 329126 4565 0 35 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:18
> 32 0 48959268 191989024 1052 2647828 595888 825480 0 0 368714 8096 0 35 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:19
> 32 0 49242368 191990304 1052 2650036 746212 1028524 0 0 411140 10949 0 34 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:20
> 32 0 49520792 191984080 1052 2652372 758208 1037236 0 0 415505 10094 0 34 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:21
> 32 0 49799168 191994240 1052 2654724 767236 1046964 0 0 418405 10726 0 35 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:22
> 32 0 50067712 191989104 1052 2657092 759192 1028600 0 0 415356 10173 0 35 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:23
> 33 0 50333440 191980320 1052 2659332 750764 1014732 0 0 412144 9197 0 34 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:24
> 32 0 50584052 191973824 1052 2661576 737720 988964 0 0 406620 8752 0 35 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:25
> 32 0 50816000 191976080 1052 2663660 689248 921108 0 0 391782 8517 0 34 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:26
> 32 0 51036416 191970464 1052 2665612 668004 888220 0 0 385112 7310 1 34 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:27
> 32 0 51256576 191962224 1052 2667536 678464 897872 0 0 388494 12547 0 35 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:28
> 33 0 51464680 191966304 1052 2669472 654540 862720 0 0 380869 7069 1 34 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:29
> 32 0 51597232 191971840 1052 2670848 419772 552324 0 0 314325 4029 1 35 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:30
> 33 0 51722448 191969456 1052 2672072 409300 535892 0 0 310720 4014 1 35 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:31
> 32 0 51850496 191963472 1052 2673236 413160 541076 0 0 311652 3583 1 35 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:32
> 32 0 51978872 191968208 1052 2674452 415844 543464 0 0 312411 3579 1 35 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:33
> 32 0 52105724 191974640 1052 2675616 418104 545728 0 0 312731 4183 1 35 65 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:34
> 34 0 52232928 191964336 1052 2676964 426200 552956 0 0 314230 3834 1 35 64 0 0 2022-04-19 11:46:35
>
> The full vmstat is attached.
>
> > For swap-in latency, we can use pmbench, which can output latency
> > information.
> >
>
> OK, I'll give pmbench a run, thanks for the suggestion.
Better to construct a senario with more swapin than swapout. For
example, start a memory eater, then kill it later.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists