Message-ID: <CAGsJ_4xbciws3AnRFk0U8YeS5MPD=deXw6PCB6i71vgrLir8ew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:28:38 +1300
From: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
To: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, hannes@...xchg.org, 
	david@...hat.com, willy@...radead.org, kanchana.p.sridhar@...el.com, 
	yosryahmed@...gle.com, nphamcs@...il.com, chengming.zhou@...ux.dev, 
	ryan.roberts@....com, ying.huang@...el.com, riel@...riel.com, 
	shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, kernel-team@...a.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/4] mm/zswap: add support for large folio zswapin

On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 1:21 AM Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 21/10/2024 11:55, Barry Song wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 11:44 PM Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 21/10/2024 06:49, Barry Song wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 11:50 PM Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> At time of folio allocation, alloc_swap_folio checks if the entire
> >>>> folio is in zswap to determine folio order.
> >>>> During swap_read_folio, zswap_load will check if the entire folio
> >>>> is in zswap, and if it is, it will iterate through the pages in
> >>>> folio and decompress them.
> >>>> This will mean the benefits of large folios (fewer page faults, batched
> >>>> PTE and rmap manipulation, reduced lru list, TLB coalescing (for arm64
> >>>> and amd) are not lost at swap out when using zswap.
> >>>> This patch does not add support for hybrid backends (i.e. folios
> >>>> partly present swap and zswap).
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  mm/memory.c | 13 +++-------
> >>>>  mm/zswap.c  | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
> >>>>  2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> >>>> index 49d243131169..75f7b9f5fb32 100644
> >>>> --- a/mm/memory.c
> >>>> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> >>>> @@ -4077,13 +4077,14 @@ static bool can_swapin_thp(struct vm_fault *vmf, pte_t *ptep, int nr_pages)
> >>>>
> >>>>         /*
> >>>>          * swap_read_folio() can't handle the case a large folio is hybridly
> >>>> -        * from different backends. And they are likely corner cases. Similar
> >>>> -        * things might be added once zswap support large folios.
> >>>> +        * from different backends. And they are likely corner cases.
> >>>>          */
> >>>>         if (unlikely(swap_zeromap_batch(entry, nr_pages, NULL) != nr_pages))
> >>>>                 return false;
> >>>>         if (unlikely(non_swapcache_batch(entry, nr_pages) != nr_pages))
> >>>>                 return false;
> >>>> +       if (unlikely(!zswap_present_test(entry, nr_pages)))
> >>>> +               return false;
> >>>>
> >>>>         return true;
> >>>>  }
> >>>> @@ -4130,14 +4131,6 @@ static struct folio *alloc_swap_folio(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> >>>>         if (unlikely(userfaultfd_armed(vma)))
> >>>>                 goto fallback;
> >>>>
> >>>> -       /*
> >>>> -        * A large swapped out folio could be partially or fully in zswap. We
> >>>> -        * lack handling for such cases, so fallback to swapping in order-0
> >>>> -        * folio.
> >>>> -        */
> >>>> -       if (!zswap_never_enabled())
> >>>> -               goto fallback;
> >>>> -
> >>>>         entry = pte_to_swp_entry(vmf->orig_pte);
> >>>>         /*
> >>>>          * Get a list of all the (large) orders below PMD_ORDER that are enabled
> >>>> diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c
> >>>> index 9cc91ae31116..a5aa86c24060 100644
> >>>> --- a/mm/zswap.c
> >>>> +++ b/mm/zswap.c
> >>>> @@ -1624,59 +1624,53 @@ bool zswap_present_test(swp_entry_t swp, int nr_pages)
> >>>>
> >>>>  bool zswap_load(struct folio *folio)
> >>>>  {
> >>>> +       int nr_pages = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> >>>>         swp_entry_t swp = folio->swap;
> >>>> +       unsigned int type = swp_type(swp);
> >>>>         pgoff_t offset = swp_offset(swp);
> >>>>         bool swapcache = folio_test_swapcache(folio);
> >>>> -       struct xarray *tree = swap_zswap_tree(swp);
> >>>> +       struct xarray *tree;
> >>>>         struct zswap_entry *entry;
> >>>> +       int i;
> >>>>
> >>>>         VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio_test_locked(folio));
> >>>>
> >>>>         if (zswap_never_enabled())
> >>>>                 return false;
> >>>>
> >>>> -       /*
> >>>> -        * Large folios should not be swapped in while zswap is being used, as
> >>>> -        * they are not properly handled. Zswap does not properly load large
> >>>> -        * folios, and a large folio may only be partially in zswap.
> >>>> -        *
> >>>> -        * Return true without marking the folio uptodate so that an IO error is
> >>>> -        * emitted (e.g. do_swap_page() will sigbus).
> >>>> -        */
> >>>> -       if (WARN_ON_ONCE(folio_test_large(folio)))
> >>>> -               return true;
> >>>> -
> >>>> -       /*
> >>>> -        * When reading into the swapcache, invalidate our entry. The
> >>>> -        * swapcache can be the authoritative owner of the page and
> >>>> -        * its mappings, and the pressure that results from having two
> >>>> -        * in-memory copies outweighs any benefits of caching the
> >>>> -        * compression work.
> >>>> -        *
> >>>> -        * (Most swapins go through the swapcache. The notable
> >>>> -        * exception is the singleton fault on SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO
> >>>> -        * files, which reads into a private page and may free it if
> >>>> -        * the fault fails. We remain the primary owner of the entry.)
> >>>> -        */
> >>>> -       if (swapcache)
> >>>> -               entry = xa_erase(tree, offset);
> >>>> -       else
> >>>> -               entry = xa_load(tree, offset);
> >>>> -
> >>>> -       if (!entry)
> >>>> +       if (!zswap_present_test(folio->swap, nr_pages))
> >>>>                 return false;
> >>>
> >>> Hi Usama,
> >>>
> >>> Is there any chance that zswap_present_test() returns true
> >>> in do_swap_page() but false in zswap_load()? If that’s
> >>> possible, could we be missing something? For example,
> >>> could it be that zswap has been partially released (with
> >>> part of it still present) during an mTHP swap-in?
> >>>
> >>> If this happens with an mTHP, my understanding is that
> >>> we shouldn't proceed with reading corrupted data from the
> >>> disk backend.
> >>>
> >>
> >> If its not swapcache, the zswap entry is not deleted so I think
> >> it should be ok?
> >>
> >> We can check over here if the entire folio is in zswap,
> >> and if not, return true without marking the folio uptodate
> >> to give an error.
> >
> > We have swapcache_prepare() called in do_swap_page(), which should
> > have protected these entries from being partially freed by other processes
> > (for example, if someone falls back to small folios for the same address).
> > Therefore, I believe that zswap_present_test() cannot be false for mTHP in
> > the current case where only synchronous I/O is supported.
> >
> > the below might help detect the bug?
> >
> > if (!zswap_present_test(folio->swap, nr_pages)) {
> >      if (WARN_ON_ONCE(nr_pages > 1))
> >                 return true;
> >      return false;
> > }
> >
>
> I think this isn't correct. If nr_pages > 1 and the entire folio is not in zswap,
> it should still return false. So would need to check the whole folio if we want to
> warn. But I think if we are sure the code is ok, it is an unnecessary check.

my point is that zswap_present_test() can't differentiate
1. the *whole* folio is not in zswap
2. the folio is *partially* not in zswap

in case 2, returning false is wrong.

And when nr_pages > 1, we have already confirmed earlier in
do_swap_page() that zswap_present_test() is true. At this point,
it must always be true; if it's false, it indicates a bug.

>
> > the code seems quite ugly :-) do we have some way to unify the code
> > for large and small folios?
> >
> > not quite sure about shmem though....
> >
>
> If its shmem, and the swap_count goes to 1, I think its still ok? because
> then the folio will be gotten from swap_cache_get_folio if it has already
> been in swapcache.
>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> -       zswap_decompress(entry, &folio->page);
> >>>> +       for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; ++i) {
> >>>> +               tree = swap_zswap_tree(swp_entry(type, offset + i));
> >>>> +               /*
> >>>> +                * When reading into the swapcache, invalidate our entry. The
> >>>> +                * swapcache can be the authoritative owner of the page and
> >>>> +                * its mappings, and the pressure that results from having two
> >>>> +                * in-memory copies outweighs any benefits of caching the
> >>>> +                * compression work.
> >>>> +                *
> >>>> +                * (Swapins with swap count > 1 go through the swapcache.
> >>>> +                * For swap count == 1, the swapcache is skipped and we
> >>>> +                * remain the primary owner of the entry.)
> >>>> +                */
> >>>> +               if (swapcache)
> >>>> +                       entry = xa_erase(tree, offset + i);
> >>>> +               else
> >>>> +                       entry = xa_load(tree, offset + i);
> >>>>
> >>>> -       count_vm_event(ZSWPIN);
> >>>> -       if (entry->objcg)
> >>>> -               count_objcg_events(entry->objcg, ZSWPIN, 1);
> >>>> +               zswap_decompress(entry, folio_page(folio, i));
> >>>>
> >>>> -       if (swapcache) {
> >>>> -               zswap_entry_free(entry);
> >>>> -               folio_mark_dirty(folio);
> >>>> +               if (entry->objcg)
> >>>> +                       count_objcg_events(entry->objcg, ZSWPIN, 1);
> >>>> +               if (swapcache)
> >>>> +                       zswap_entry_free(entry);
> >>>>         }
> >>>>
> >>>> +       count_vm_events(ZSWPIN, nr_pages);
> >>>> +       if (swapcache)
> >>>> +               folio_mark_dirty(folio);
> >>>> +
> >>>>         folio_mark_uptodate(folio);
> >>>>         return true;
> >>>>  }
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.43.5
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> > Thanks
> > barry
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists