Message-ID: <87iktj4m3u.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 09:57:41 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org,  chrisl@...nel.org,  david@...hat.com,
  hannes@...xchg.org,  hughd@...gle.com,  kaleshsingh@...gle.com,
  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,  linux-mm@...ck.org,
  liyangouwen1@...o.com,  mhocko@...e.com,  minchan@...nel.org,
  sj@...nel.org,  stable@...r.kernel.org,  surenb@...gle.com,
  v-songbaohua@...o.com,  willy@...radead.org,  yosryahmed@...gle.com,
  yuzhao@...gle.com,  Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: avoid unconditional one-tick sleep when
 swapcache_prepare fails

Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 8:55 AM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 8:35 AM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 8:43 AM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >
>> >> > yes. this can be implemented by adding another atomic variable.
>> >>
>> >> Just realized that we don't need another atomic variable for this, just
>> >> use waitqueue_active() before wake_up() should be enough.
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, Kairui please run a test on your machine with lots of cores before
>> >> > and after adding a global atomic variable as suggested by Ying. I am
>> >> > sorry I don't have a server machine.
>> >> >
>> >> > if it turns out you find cache ping-pong can be an issue, another
>> >> > approach would be a waitqueue hash:
>> >>
>> >> Yes.  waitqueue hash may help reduce lock contention.  And, we can have
>> >> both waitqueue_active() and waitqueue hash if necessary.  As the first
>> >> step, waitqueue_active() appears simpler.
>> >
>> > Hi Andrew,
>> > If there are no objections, can you please squash the below change? Oven
>> > has already tested the change and the original issue was still fixed with
>> > it. If you want me to send v2 instead, please let me know.
>> >
>> > From a5ca401da89f3b628c3a0147e54541d0968654b2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
>> > Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 20:18:27 +0800
>> > Subject: [PATCH] mm: wake_up only when swapcache_wq waitqueue is active
>> >
>> > wake_up() will acquire spinlock even waitqueue is empty. This might
>> > involve cache sync overhead. Let's only call wake_up() when waitqueue
>> > is active.
>> >
>> > Suggested-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
>> > ---
>> >  mm/memory.c | 6 ++++--
>> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
>> > index fe21bd3beff5..4adb2d0bcc7a 100644
>> > --- a/mm/memory.c
>> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
>> > @@ -4623,7 +4623,8 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> >       /* Clear the swap cache pin for direct swapin after PTL unlock */
>> >       if (need_clear_cache) {
>> >               swapcache_clear(si, entry, nr_pages);
>> > -             wake_up(&swapcache_wq);
>> > +             if (waitqueue_active(&swapcache_wq))
>> > +                     wake_up(&swapcache_wq);
>> >       }
>> >       if (si)
>> >               put_swap_device(si);
>> > @@ -4641,7 +4642,8 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> >       }
>> >       if (need_clear_cache) {
>> >               swapcache_clear(si, entry, nr_pages);
>> > -             wake_up(&swapcache_wq);
>> > +             if (waitqueue_active(&swapcache_wq))
>> > +                     wake_up(&swapcache_wq);
>> >       }
>> >       if (si)
>> >               put_swap_device(si);
>>
>> Hi, Kairui,
>>
>> Do you have time to give this patch (combined with the previous patch
>> from Barry) a test to check whether the overhead introduced in the
>> previous patch has been eliminated?
>
> Hi Ying, Barry
>
> I did a rebase on mm tree and run more tests with the latest patch:
>
> Before the two patches:
> make -j96 (64k): 33814.45 35061.25 35667.54 36618.30 37381.60 37678.75
> make -j96: 20456.03 20460.36 20511.55 20584.76 20751.07 20780.79
> make -j64:7490.83 7515.55 7535.30 7544.81 7564.77 7583.41
>
> After adding workqueue:
> make -j96 (64k): 33190.60 35049.57 35732.01 36263.81 37154.05 37815.50
> make -j96: 20373.27 20382.96 20428.78 20459.73 20534.59 20548.48
> make -j64: 7469.18 7522.57 7527.38 7532.69 7543.36 7546.28
>
> After adding workqueue with workqueue_active() check:
> make -j96 (64k): 33321.03 35039.68 35552.86 36474.95 37502.76 37549.04
> make -j96: 20601.39 20639.08 20692.81 20693.91 20701.35 20740.71
> make -j64: 7538.63 7542.27 7564.86 7567.36 7594.14 7600.96
>
> So I think it's just noise level performance change, it should be OK
> in either way.

Thanks for your test results.  There should be bottlenecks in other
places.

--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

Powered by blists - more mailing lists