| 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: <SJ0PR11MB567839F1CB09EBD24921AA20C96C2@SJ0PR11MB5678.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 02:16:53 +0000
From: "Sridhar, Kanchana P" <kanchana.p.sridhar@...el.com>
To: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "hannes@...xchg.org"
<hannes@...xchg.org>, "chengming.zhou@...ux.dev" <chengming.zhou@...ux.dev>,
"usamaarif642@...il.com" <usamaarif642@...il.com>, "ryan.roberts@....com"
<ryan.roberts@....com>, "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"21cnbao@...il.com" <21cnbao@...il.com>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org"
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Zou, Nanhai" <nanhai.zou@...el.com>, "Feghali,
Wajdi K" <wajdi.k.feghali@...el.com>, "Gopal, Vinodh"
<vinodh.gopal@...el.com>, "Sridhar, Kanchana P"
<kanchana.p.sridhar@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 0/3] mm: ZSWAP swap-out of mTHP folios
Hi Nhat,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 4:46 PM
> To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
> Cc: Sridhar, Kanchana P <kanchana.p.sridhar@...el.com>; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-mm@...ck.org; hannes@...xchg.org;
> chengming.zhou@...ux.dev; usamaarif642@...il.com;
> ryan.roberts@....com; Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>;
> 21cnbao@...il.com; akpm@...ux-foundation.org; Zou, Nanhai
> <nanhai.zou@...el.com>; Feghali, Wajdi K <wajdi.k.feghali@...el.com>;
> Gopal, Vinodh <vinodh.gopal@...el.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] mm: ZSWAP swap-out of mTHP folios
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 3:49 PM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 2:27 PM Kanchana P Sridhar
> >
> > We are basically comparing zram with zswap in this case, and it's not
> > fair because, as you mentioned, the zswap compressed data is being
> > accounted for while the zram compressed data isn't. I am not really
> > sure how valuable these test results are. Even if we remove the cgroup
> > accounting from zswap, we won't see an improvement, we should expect a
> > similar performance to zram.
> >
> > I think the test results that are really valuable are case 1, where
> > zswap users are currently disabling CONFIG_THP_SWAP, and get to enable
> > it after this series.
>
> Ah, this is a good point.
>
> I think the point of comparing mTHP zswap v.s mTHP (SSD)swap is more
> of a sanity check. IOW, if mTHP swap outperforms mTHP zswap, then
> something is wrong (otherwise why would enable zswap - might as well
> just use swap, since SSD swap with mTHP >>> zswap with mTHP >>> zswap
> without mTHP).
>
> That said, I don't think this benchmark can show it anyway. The access
> pattern here is such that all the allocated memories are really cold,
> so swap to disk (or to zram, which does not account memory usage
> towards cgroup) is better by definition... And Kanchana does not seem
> to have access to setup with larger SSD swapfiles? :)
As follow up, I created a swapfile on disk to increase the SSD swap to 179G.
64KB mTHP (cgroup memory.high set to 40G, no swap limit):
=========================================================
CONFIG_THP_SWAP=Y
Sapphire Rapids server with 503 GiB RAM and 179G SSD swap backing device
for zswap.
usemem --init-time -w -O --sleep 0 -n 70 1g:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mm-unstable 9-17-2024 zswap-mTHP v6 Change wrt
Baseline Baseline
"before" "after" (sleep 0)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZSWAP compressor zstd deflate- zstd deflate- zstd deflate-
iaa iaa iaa
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughput (KB/s) 93,273 88,496 143,117 134,131 53% 52%
sys time (sec) 316.68 349.00 917.88 877.74 -190% -152%
memcg_high 73,836 83,522 126,120 133,013
memcg_swap_fail 261,136 324,533 494,191 578,824
pswpin 16 11 0 0
pswpout 1,242,187 1,263,493 0 0
zswpin 694 668 712 702
zswpout 3,991,403 4,933,901 9,289,092 10,461,948
thp_swpout 0 0 0 0
thp_swpout_ 0 0 0 0
fallback
pgmajfault 3,488 3,353 3,377 3,499
ZSWPOUT-64kB n/a n/a 110,067 103,957
SWPOUT-64kB 77,637 78,968 0 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do see 50% throughput improvement with mTHP-zswap wrt mTHP-SSD.
The sys time increase can be attributed to higher swapout activity
occurring with zswap-mTHP.
I hope this quantifies the benefit of mTHP-zswap wrt mTHP-SSD in a
non-swap-constrained setup. The 4G SSD swap setup data I shared
in my response to Yosry also indicates better throughput with mTHP-zswap
as compared to mTHP-SSD.
Please do let me know if you have any other questions/suggestions.
Thanks,
Kanchana
>
> >
> > If we really want to compare CONFIG_THP_SWAP on before and after, it
> > should be with SSD because that's a more conventional setup. In this
> > case the users that have CONFIG_THP_SWAP=y only experience the
> > benefits of zswap with this series. You mentioned experimenting with
> > usemem to keep the memory allocated longer so that you're able to have
> > a fair test with the small SSD swap setup. Did that work?
> >
> > I am hoping Nhat or Johannes would shed some light on whether they
> > usually have CONFIG_THP_SWAP enabled or not with zswap. I am trying to
> > figure out if any reasonable setups enable CONFIG_THP_SWAP with zswap.
> > Otherwise the testing results from case 1 should be sufficient.
> >
> > >
> > > In my opinion, even though the test set up does not provide an accurate
> > > way for a direct before/after comparison (because of zswap usage being
> > > counted in cgroup, hence towards the memory.high), it still seems
> > > reasonable for zswap_store to support (m)THP, so that further
> performance
> > > improvements can be implemented.
> >
> > This is only referring to the results of case 2, right?
> >
> > Honestly, I wouldn't want to merge mTHP swapout support on its own
> > just because it enables further performance improvements without
> > having actual patches for them. But I don't think this captures the
> > results accurately as it dismisses case 1 results (which I think are
> > more reasonable).
> >
> > Thnaks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists