linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: avoid unconditional one-tick sleep when swapcache

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87y137nxqs.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2024 08:40:11 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>,  Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org,  linux-mm@...ck.org,
  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,  Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>,  Yu
 Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,  David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,  Chris Li
 <chrisl@...nel.org>,  Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,  Johannes Weiner
 <hannes@...xchg.org>,  Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,  Michal Hocko
 <mhocko@...e.com>,  Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,  Yosry Ahmed
 <yosryahmed@...gle.com>,  SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>,  Kalesh Singh
 <kaleshsingh@...gle.com>,  Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
  stable@...r.kernel.org,  Oven Liyang <liyangouwen1@...o.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: avoid unconditional one-tick sleep when
 swapcache_prepare fails

Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> writes:

> On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 7:43 AM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 3:43 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi, Barry,
>> >>
>> >> Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
>> >> >
>> >> > Commit 13ddaf26be32 ("mm/swap: fix race when skipping swapcache")
>> >> > introduced an unconditional one-tick sleep when `swapcache_prepare()`
>> >> > fails, which has led to reports of UI stuttering on latency-sensitive
>> >> > Android devices. To address this, we can use a waitqueue to wake up
>> >> > tasks that fail `swapcache_prepare()` sooner, instead of always
>> >> > sleeping for a full tick. While tasks may occasionally be woken by an
>> >> > unrelated `do_swap_page()`, this method is preferable to two scenarios:
>> >> > rapid re-entry into page faults, which can cause livelocks, and
>> >> > multiple millisecond sleeps, which visibly degrade user experience.
>> >>
>> >> In general, I think that this works.  Why not extend the solution to
>> >> cover schedule_timeout_uninterruptible() in __read_swap_cache_async()
>> >> too?  We can call wake_up() when we clear SWAP_HAS_CACHE.  To avoid
>> >
>> > Hi Ying,
>> > Thanks for your comments.
>> > I feel extending the solution to __read_swap_cache_async() should be done
>> > in a separate patch. On phones, I've never encountered any issues reported
>> > on that path, so it might be better suited for an optimization rather than a
>> > hotfix?
>>
>> Yes.  It's fine to do that in another patch as optimization.
>
> Ok. I'll prepare a separate patch for optimizing that path.

Thanks!

>>
>> >> overhead to call wake_up() when there's no task waiting, we can use an
>> >> atomic to count waiting tasks.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure it's worth adding the complexity, as wake_up() on an empty
>> > waitqueue should have a very low cost on its own?
>>
>> wake_up() needs to call spin_lock_irqsave() unconditionally on a global
>> shared lock.  On systems with many CPUs (such servers), this may cause
>> severe lock contention.  Even the cache ping-pong may hurt performance
>> much.
>
> I understand that cache synchronization was a significant issue before
> qspinlock, but it seems to be less of a concern after its implementation.

Unfortunately, qspinlock cannot eliminate cache ping-pong issue, as
discussed in the following thread.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220510192708.GQ76023@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net/

> However, using a global atomic variable would still trigger cache broadcasts,
> correct?

We can only change the atomic variable to non-zero when
swapcache_prepare() returns non-zero, and call wake_up() when the atomic
variable is non-zero.  Because swapcache_prepare() returns 0 most times,
the atomic variable is 0 most times.  If we don't change the value of
atomic variable, cache ping-pong will not be triggered.

Hi, Kairui,

Do you have some test cases to test parallel zram swap-in?  If so, that
can be used to verify whether cache ping-pong is an issue and whether it
can be fixed via a global atomic variable.

--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying