| 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: <87msqkm8tq.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 15:29:21 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, Minchan Kim
<minchan@...nel.org>, Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>, Ryan Roberts
<ryan.roberts@....com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, SeongJae Park
<sj@...nel.org>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Yosry Ahmed
<yosryahmed@...gle.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Matthew
Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, Chengming
Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 04/10] mm/swap: remove cache bypass swapin
Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 2:32 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com> writes:
>>
>> > From: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
>> >
>> > We used to have the cache bypass swapin path for better performance,
>> > but by removing it, more optimization can be applied and have
>> > an even better overall performance and less hackish.
>> >
>> > And these optimizations are not easily doable or not doable at all
>> > without this.
>> >
>> > This patch simply removes it, and the performance will drop heavily
>> > for simple swapin, things won't get this worse for real workloads
>> > but still observable. Following commits will fix this and archive a
>> > better performance.
>> >
>> > Swapout/in 30G zero pages from ZRAM (This mostly measures overhead
>> > of swap path itself, because zero pages are not compressed but simply
>> > recorded in ZRAM, and performance drops more as SWAP device is getting
>> > full):
>> >
>> > Test result of sequential swapin/out:
>> >
>> > Before (us) After (us)
>> > Swapout: 33619409 33624641
>> > Swapin: 32393771 41614858 (-28.4%)
>> > Swapout (THP): 7817909 7795530
>> > Swapin (THP) : 32452387 41708471 (-28.4%)
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
>> > ---
>> > mm/memory.c | 18 ++++-------------
>> > mm/swap.h | 10 +++++-----
>> > mm/swap_state.c | 53 ++++++++++---------------------------------------
>> > mm/swapfile.c | 13 ------------
>> > 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
>> > index dfdb620a9123..357d239ee2f6 100644
>> > --- a/mm/memory.c
>> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
>> > @@ -3932,7 +3932,6 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> > struct page *page;
>> > struct swap_info_struct *si = NULL;
>> > rmap_t rmap_flags = RMAP_NONE;
>> > - bool need_clear_cache = false;
>> > bool exclusive = false;
>> > swp_entry_t entry;
>> > pte_t pte;
>> > @@ -4000,14 +3999,9 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> > if (!folio) {
>> > if (data_race(si->flags & SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO) &&
>> > __swap_count(entry) == 1) {
>> > - /* skip swapcache and readahead */
>> > folio = swapin_direct(entry, GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE, vmf);
>> > - if (PTR_ERR(folio) == -EBUSY)
>> > - goto out;
>> > - need_clear_cache = true;
>> > } else {
>> > folio = swapin_readahead(entry, GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE, vmf);
>> > - swapcache = folio;
>> > }
>> >
>> > if (!folio) {
>> > @@ -4023,6 +4017,7 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> > goto unlock;
>> > }
>> >
>> > + swapcache = folio;
>> > page = folio_file_page(folio, swp_offset(entry));
>> >
>> > /* Had to read the page from swap area: Major fault */
>> > @@ -4187,7 +4182,7 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> > vmf->orig_pte = pte;
>> >
>> > /* ksm created a completely new copy */
>> > - if (unlikely(folio != swapcache && swapcache)) {
>> > + if (unlikely(folio != swapcache)) {
>> > folio_add_new_anon_rmap(folio, vma, vmf->address);
>> > folio_add_lru_vma(folio, vma);
>> > } else {
>> > @@ -4201,7 +4196,7 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> > arch_do_swap_page(vma->vm_mm, vma, vmf->address, pte, vmf->orig_pte);
>> >
>> > folio_unlock(folio);
>> > - if (folio != swapcache && swapcache) {
>> > + if (folio != swapcache) {
>> > /*
>> > * Hold the lock to avoid the swap entry to be reused
>> > * until we take the PT lock for the pte_same() check
>> > @@ -4227,9 +4222,6 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> > if (vmf->pte)
>> > pte_unmap_unlock(vmf->pte, vmf->ptl);
>> > out:
>> > - /* Clear the swap cache pin for direct swapin after PTL unlock */
>> > - if (need_clear_cache)
>> > - swapcache_clear(si, entry);
>> > if (si)
>> > put_swap_device(si);
>> > return ret;
>> > @@ -4240,12 +4232,10 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> > folio_unlock(folio);
>> > out_release:
>> > folio_put(folio);
>> > - if (folio != swapcache && swapcache) {
>> > + if (folio != swapcache) {
>> > folio_unlock(swapcache);
>> > folio_put(swapcache);
>> > }
>> > - if (need_clear_cache)
>> > - swapcache_clear(si, entry);
>> > if (si)
>> > put_swap_device(si);
>> > return ret;
>> > diff --git a/mm/swap.h b/mm/swap.h
>> > index aee134907a70..ac9573b03432 100644
>> > --- a/mm/swap.h
>> > +++ b/mm/swap.h
>> > @@ -41,7 +41,6 @@ void __delete_from_swap_cache(struct folio *folio,
>> > void delete_from_swap_cache(struct folio *folio);
>> > void clear_shadow_from_swap_cache(int type, unsigned long begin,
>> > unsigned long end);
>> > -void swapcache_clear(struct swap_info_struct *si, swp_entry_t entry);
>> > struct folio *swap_cache_get_folio(swp_entry_t entry,
>> > struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr);
>> > struct folio *filemap_get_incore_folio(struct address_space *mapping,
>> > @@ -100,14 +99,15 @@ static inline struct folio *swapin_readahead(swp_entry_t swp, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>> > {
>> > return NULL;
>> > }
>> > -
>> > -static inline int swap_writepage(struct page *p, struct writeback_control *wbc)
>> > +static inline struct folio *swapin_direct(swp_entry_t entry, gfp_t flag,
>> > + struct vm_fault *vmf);
>> > {
>> > - return 0;
>> > + return NULL;
>> > }
>> >
>> > -static inline void swapcache_clear(struct swap_info_struct *si, swp_entry_t entry)
>> > +static inline int swap_writepage(struct page *p, struct writeback_control *wbc)
>> > {
>> > + return 0;
>> > }
>> >
>> > static inline struct folio *swap_cache_get_folio(swp_entry_t entry,
>> > diff --git a/mm/swap_state.c b/mm/swap_state.c
>> > index 2a9c6bdff5ea..49ef6250f676 100644
>> > --- a/mm/swap_state.c
>> > +++ b/mm/swap_state.c
>> > @@ -880,61 +880,28 @@ static struct folio *swap_vma_readahead(swp_entry_t targ_entry, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>> > }
>> >
>> > /**
>> > - * swapin_direct - swap in folios skipping swap cache and readahead
>> > + * swapin_direct - swap in folios skipping readahead
>> > * @entry: swap entry of this memory
>> > * @gfp_mask: memory allocation flags
>> > * @vmf: fault information
>> > *
>> > - * Returns the struct folio for entry and addr after the swap entry is read
>> > - * in.
>> > + * Returns the folio for entry after it is read in.
>> > */
>> > struct folio *swapin_direct(swp_entry_t entry, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>> > struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> > {
>> > - struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
>> > + struct mempolicy *mpol;
>> > struct folio *folio;
>> > - void *shadow = NULL;
>> > -
>> > - /*
>> > - * Prevent parallel swapin from proceeding with
>> > - * the cache flag. Otherwise, another thread may
>> > - * finish swapin first, free the entry, and swapout
>> > - * reusing the same entry. It's undetectable as
>> > - * pte_same() returns true due to entry reuse.
>> > - */
>> > - if (swapcache_prepare(entry)) {
>> > - /* Relax a bit to prevent rapid repeated page faults */
>> > - schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
>> > - return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
>> > - }
>> > -
>> > - /* skip swapcache */
>> > - folio = vma_alloc_folio(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE, 0,
>> > - vma, vmf->address, false);
>> > - if (folio) {
>> > - __folio_set_locked(folio);
>> > - __folio_set_swapbacked(folio);
>> > -
>> > - if (mem_cgroup_swapin_charge_folio(folio,
>> > - vma->vm_mm, GFP_KERNEL,
>> > - entry)) {
>> > - folio_unlock(folio);
>> > - folio_put(folio);
>> > - return NULL;
>> > - }
>> > - mem_cgroup_swapin_uncharge_swap(entry);
>> > -
>> > - shadow = get_shadow_from_swap_cache(entry);
>> > - if (shadow)
>> > - workingset_refault(folio, shadow);
>> > + bool page_allocated;
>> > + pgoff_t ilx;
>> >
>> > - folio_add_lru(folio);
>> > + mpol = get_vma_policy(vmf->vma, vmf->address, 0, &ilx);
>> > + folio = __read_swap_cache_async(entry, gfp_mask, mpol, ilx,
>> > + &page_allocated, false);
>> > + mpol_cond_put(mpol);
>> >
>> > - /* To provide entry to swap_read_folio() */
>> > - folio->swap = entry;
>> > + if (page_allocated)
>> > swap_read_folio(folio, true, NULL);
>> > - folio->private = NULL;
>> > - }
>> >
>> > return folio;
>> > }
>>
>> This looks similar as read_swap_cache_async(). Can we merge them?
>
> Yes, that's doable. But I may have to split it out again for later
> optimizations though.
>
>>
>> And, we should avoid to readahead in swapin_readahead() or
>> swap_vma_readahead() for SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO anyway. So, it appears that
>> we can change and use swapin_readahead() directly?
>
> Good point, SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO check can be extended more after this
> series, but readahead optimization could be another series (like the
> previous one which tried to unify readahead for shmem/anon), so I
> thought it's better to keep it untouched for now.
Just want to check whether we can reduce the special processing for
SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO as much as possible.
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists