[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b5952ee4-3b86-40ff-a3de-8a08f09557bd@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 20:05:48 +0800
From: Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@...ux.dev>
To: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: hannes@...xchg.org, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, david@...hat.com,
ying.huang@...el.com, hughd@...gle.com, willy@...radead.org,
yosryahmed@...gle.com, nphamcs@...il.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] mm: store zero pages to be swapped out in a bitmap
On 2024/6/14 18:07, Usama Arif wrote:
> Approximately 10-20% of pages to be swapped out are zero pages [1].
> Rather than reading/writing these pages to flash resulting
> in increased I/O and flash wear, a bitmap can be used to mark these
> pages as zero at write time, and the pages can be filled at
> read time if the bit corresponding to the page is set.
> With this patch, NVMe writes in Meta server fleet decreased
> by almost 10% with conventional swap setup (zswap disabled).
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20171018104832epcms5p1b2232e2236258de3d03d1344dde9fce0@epcms5p1/
>
> Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
Looks good to me, only some small nits below.
Reviewed-by: Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@...ux.dev>
> ---
> include/linux/swap.h | 1 +
> mm/page_io.c | 113 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> mm/swapfile.c | 15 ++++++
> 3 files changed, 128 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
[...]
> +
> +static void swap_zeromap_folio_set(struct folio *folio)
> +{
> + struct swap_info_struct *sis = swp_swap_info(folio->swap);
> + swp_entry_t entry;
> + unsigned int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < folio_nr_pages(folio); i++) {
> + entry = page_swap_entry(folio_page(folio, i));
It seems simpler to use:
swp_entry_t entry = folio->swap;
for (i = 0; i < folio_nr_pages(folio); i++, entry.val++)
The current code is good too, no objection.
> + set_bit(swp_offset(entry), sis->zeromap);
> + }
> +}
> +
[...]
> diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
> index 9c6d8e557c0f..0b8270359bcf 100644
> --- a/mm/swapfile.c
> +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
> @@ -747,6 +747,14 @@ static void swap_range_free(struct swap_info_struct *si, unsigned long offset,
> unsigned long begin = offset;
> unsigned long end = offset + nr_entries - 1;
> void (*swap_slot_free_notify)(struct block_device *, unsigned long);
> + unsigned int i;
> +
> + /*
> + * Use atomic clear_bit operations only on zeromap instead of non-atomic
> + * bitmap_clear to prevent adjacent bits corruption due to simultaneous writes.
> + */
> + for (i = 0; i < nr_entries; i++)
> + clear_bit(offset + i, si->zeromap);
I'm wondering if we need to clear bits at all? Since the current locked folio is
the owner of these bits, we always update correctly when swap_writepage(). So
if these swap entries freed and reused by another folio, we won't load from backend
until that another folio has gone swap_writepage(), which update these bits correctly.
Maybe I missed something? Anyway, it should be no harm to clear here too.
Thanks.
>
> if (offset < si->lowest_bit)
> si->lowest_bit = offset;
> @@ -2635,6 +2643,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(swapoff, const char __user *, specialfile)
> free_percpu(p->cluster_next_cpu);
> p->cluster_next_cpu = NULL;
> vfree(swap_map);
> + bitmap_free(p->zeromap);
> kvfree(cluster_info);
> /* Destroy swap account information */
> swap_cgroup_swapoff(p->type);
> @@ -3161,6 +3170,12 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(swapon, const char __user *, specialfile, int, swap_flags)
> goto bad_swap_unlock_inode;
> }
>
> + p->zeromap = bitmap_zalloc(maxpages, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!p->zeromap) {
> + error = -ENOMEM;
> + goto bad_swap_unlock_inode;
> + }
> +
> if (p->bdev && bdev_stable_writes(p->bdev))
> p->flags |= SWP_STABLE_WRITES;
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists