Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 10:35:15 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,  Kairui Song
 <kasong@...cent.com>,  Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,  linux-mm@...ck.org,  Barry Song
 <baohua@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm: swap: mTHP swap allocator base on swap cluster
 order

Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org> writes:

> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 7:54 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org> writes:
>>
>> > Hi Ying,
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 1:57 AM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > I am spinning a new version for this series to address two issues
>> >> > found in this series:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1) Oppo discovered a bug in the following line:
>> >> > +               ci = si->cluster_info + tmp;
>> >> > Should be "tmp / SWAPFILE_CLUSTER" instead of "tmp".
>> >> > That is a serious bug but trivial to fix.
>> >> >
>> >> > 2) order 0 allocation currently blindly scans swap_map disregarding
>> >> > the cluster->order.
>> >>
>> >> IIUC, now, we only scan swap_map[] only if
>> >> !list_empty(&si->free_clusters) && !list_empty(&si->nonfull_clusters[order]).
>> >> That is, if you doesn't run low swap free space, you will not do that.
>> >
>> > You can still swap space in order 0 clusters while order 4 runs out of
>> > free_cluster
>> > or nonfull_clusters[order]. For Android that is a common case.
>>
>> When we fail to allocate order 4, we will fallback to order 0.  Still
>> don't need to scan swap_map[].  But after looking at your below reply, I
>> realized that the swap space is almost full at most times in your cases.
>> Then, it's possible that we run into scanning swap_map[].
>> list_empty(&si->free_clusters) &&
>> list_empty(&si->nonfull_clusters[order]) will become true, if we put too
>> many clusters in si->percpu_cluster.  So, if we want to avoid to scan
>> swap_map[], we can stop add clusters in si->percpu_cluster when swap
>> space runs low.  And maybe take clusters out of si->percpu_cluster
>> sometimes.
>
> One idea after reading your reply. If we run out of the
> nonfull_cluster[order], we should be able to use other cpu's
> si->percpu_cluster[] as well. That is a very small win for Android,

This will be useful in general.  The number CPU may be large, and
multiple orders may be used.

> because android does not have too many cpu. We are talking about a
> handful of clusters, which might not justify the code complexity. It
> does not change the behavior that order 0 can pollut higher order.

I have a feeling that you don't really know why swap_map[] is scanned.
I suggest you to do more test and tracing to find out the reason.  I
suspect that there are some non-full cluster collection issues.

>> Another issue is nonfull_cluster[order1] cannot be used for
>> nonfull_cluster[order2].  In definition, we should not fail order 0
>> allocation, we need to steal nonfull_cluster[order>0] for order 0
>> allocation.  This can avoid to scan swap_map[] too.  This may be not
>> perfect, but it is the simplest first step implementation.  You can
>> optimize based on it further.
>
> Yes, that is listed as the limitation of this cluster order approach.
> Initially we need to support one order well first. We might choose
> what order that is, 16K or 64K folio. 4K pages are too small, 2M pages
> are too big. The sweet spot might be some there in between.  If we can
> support one order well, we can demonstrate the value of the mTHP. We
> can worry about other mix orders later.
>
> Do you have any suggestions for how to prevent the order 0 polluting
> the higher order cluster? If we allow that to happen, then it defeats
> the goal of being able to allocate higher order swap entries. The
> tricky question is we don't know how much swap space we should reserve
> for each order. We can always break higher order clusters to lower
> order, but can't do the reserves. The current patch series lets the
> actual usage determine the percentage of the cluster for each order.
> However that seems not enough for the test case Barry has. When the
> app gets OOM kill that is where a large swing of order 0 swap will
> show up and not enough higher order usage for the brief moment. The
> order 0 swap entry will pollute the high order cluster. We are
> currently debating a "knob" to be able to reserve a certain % of swap
> space for a certain order. Those reservations will be guaranteed and
> order 0 swap entry can't pollute them even when it runs out of swap
> space. That can make the mTHP at least usable for the Android case.

IMO, the bottom line is that order-0 allocation is the first class
citizen, we must keep it optimized.  And, OOM with free swap space isn't
acceptable.  Please consider the policy we used for page allocation.

> Do you see another way to protect the high order cluster polluted by
> lower order one?

If we use high-order page allocation as reference, we need something
like compaction to guarantee high-order allocation finally.  But we are
too far from that.

For specific configuration, I believe that we can get reasonable
high-order swap entry allocation success rate for specific use cases.
For example, if we only do limited maximum number order-0 swap entries
allocation, can we keep high-order clusters?

>>
>> And, I checked your code again.  It appears that si->percpu_cluster may
>> be put in si->nonfull_cluster[], then be used by another CPU.  Please
>> check it.
>
> Ah, good point. I think it does. Let me take a closer look.

--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

Powered by blists - more mailing lists