[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <875xpi42wg.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 11:04:47 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Chris
Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>, Ryan Roberts
<ryan.roberts@....com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Yosry Ahmed
<yosryahmed@...gle.com>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, Nhat
Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] mm, swap: rework of swap allocator locks
Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 10:27 AM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Kairui,
>
> Hi Ying,
>
>>
>> Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com> writes:
>>
>> > From: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
>> >
>> > This series improved the swap allocator performance greatly by reworking
>> > the locking design and simplify a lot of code path.
>> >
>> > This is follow up of previous swap cluster allocator series:
>> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240730-swap-allocator-v5-0-cb9c148b9297@kernel.org/
>> >
>> > And this series is based on an follow up fix of the swap cluster
>> > allocator:
>> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20241022175512.10398-1-ryncsn@gmail.com/
>> >
>> > This is part of the new swap allocator work item discussed in
>> > Chris's "Swap Abstraction" discussion at LSF/MM 2024, and
>> > "mTHP and swap allocator" discussion at LPC 2024.
>> >
>> > Previous series introduced a fully cluster based allocation algorithm,
>> > this series completely get rid of the old allocation path and makes the
>> > allocator avoid grabbing the si->lock unless needed. This bring huge
>> > performance gain and get rid of slot cache on freeing path.
>>
>> Great!
>>
>> > Currently, swap locking is mainly composed of two locks, cluster lock
>> > (ci->lock) and device lock (si->lock). The device lock is widely used
>> > to protect many things, causing it to be the main bottleneck for SWAP.
>>
>> Device lock can be confusing with another device lock for struct device.
>> Better to call it swap device lock?
>
> Good idea, I'll use the term swap device lock then.
>
>>
>> > Cluster lock is much more fine-grained, so it will be best to use
>> > ci->lock instead of si->lock as much as possible.
>> >
>> > `perf lock` indicates this issue clearly. Doing linux kernel build
>> > using tmpfs and ZRAM with limited memory (make -j64 with 1G memcg and 4k
>> > pages), result of "perf lock contention -ab sleep 3":
>> >
>> > contended total wait max wait avg wait type caller
>> >
>> > 34948 53.63 s 7.11 ms 1.53 ms spinlock free_swap_and_cache_nr+0x350
>> > 16569 40.05 s 6.45 ms 2.42 ms spinlock get_swap_pages+0x231
>> > 11191 28.41 s 7.03 ms 2.54 ms spinlock swapcache_free_entries+0x59
>> > 4147 22.78 s 122.66 ms 5.49 ms spinlock page_vma_mapped_walk+0x6f3
>> > 4595 7.17 s 6.79 ms 1.56 ms spinlock swapcache_free_entries+0x59
>> > 406027 2.74 s 2.59 ms 6.74 us spinlock list_lru_add+0x39
>> > ...snip...
>> >
>> > The top 5 caller are all users of si->lock, total wait time up sums to
>> > several minutes in the 3 seconds time window.
>>
>> Can you show results of `perf record -g`, `perf report -g` too? I have
>> interest to check hot spot shifting too.
>
> Sure. I think `perf lock` result is already good enough and cleaner.
> My test environment are mostly VM based so spinlock slow path may get
> offloaded to host, and can't be see by perf record, I collected
> following data after disabled paravirt spinlock:
>
> The time consumption and stack trace of a page fault before:
> - 78.45% 0.17% cc1 [kernel.kallsyms]
> [k] asm_exc_page_fault
> - 78.28% asm_exc_page_fault
> - 78.18% exc_page_fault
> - 78.17% do_user_addr_fault
> - 78.09% handle_mm_fault
> - 78.06% __handle_mm_fault
> - 69.69% do_swap_page
> - 55.87% alloc_swap_folio
> - 55.60% mem_cgroup_swapin_charge_folio
> - 55.48% charge_memcg
> - 55.45% try_charge_memcg
> - 55.36% try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages
> - do_try_to_free_pages
> - 55.35% shrink_node
> - 55.27% shrink_lruvec
> - 55.13% try_to_shrink_lruvec
> - 54.79% evict_folios
> - 54.35% shrink_folio_list
> - 30.01% add_to_swap
> - 29.77%
> folio_alloc_swap
> - 29.50%
> get_swap_pages
>
> 25.03% queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> - 2.71%
> alloc_swap_scan_cluster
>
> 1.80% queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> +
> 0.89% __try_to_reclaim_swap
> - 1.74%
> swap_reclaim_full_clusters
>
> 1.74% queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> - 10.88%
> try_to_unmap_flush_dirty
> - 10.87%
> arch_tlbbatch_flush
> - 10.85%
> on_each_cpu_cond_mask
>
> smp_call_function_many_cond
> + 7.45% pageout
> + 2.71% try_to_unmap_flush
> + 1.90% try_to_unmap
> + 0.78% folio_referenced
> - 9.41% cluster_swap_free_nr
> - 9.39% free_swap_slot
> - 9.35% swapcache_free_entries
> 8.40% queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> 0.93% swap_entry_range_free
> - 3.61% swap_read_folio_bdev_sync
> - 3.55% submit_bio_wait
> - 3.51% submit_bio_noacct_nocheck
> + 3.46% __submit_bio
> + 7.71% do_pte_missing
> + 0.61% wp_page_copy
>
> The queued_spin_lock_slowpath above is the si->lock, and there are
> multiple users of it so the total overhead is higher than shown.
>
> After:
> - 75.05% 0.43% cc1 [kernel.kallsyms]
> [k] asm_exc_page_fault
> - 74.62% asm_exc_page_fault
> - 74.36% exc_page_fault
> - 74.34% do_user_addr_fault
> - 74.10% handle_mm_fault
> - 73.96% __handle_mm_fault
> - 67.55% do_swap_page
> - 45.92% alloc_swap_folio
> - 45.03% mem_cgroup_swapin_charge_folio
> - 44.58% charge_memcg
> - 44.44% try_charge_memcg
> - 44.12% try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages
> - do_try_to_free_pages
> - 44.10% shrink_node
> - 43.86% shrink_lruvec
> - 41.92% try_to_shrink_lruvec
> - 40.67% evict_folios
> - 37.12% shrink_folio_list
> - 20.88% pageout
> + 20.02% swap_writepage
> + 0.72% shmem_writepage
> - 4.08% add_to_swap
> - 2.48%
> folio_alloc_swap
> - 2.12%
> __mem_cgroup_try_charge_swap
> - 1.47%
> swap_cgroup_record
> +
> 1.32% _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
> - 1.56%
> add_to_swap_cache
> - 1.04% xas_store
> + 1.01%
> workingset_update_node
> + 3.97%
> try_to_unmap_flush_dirty
> + 3.51% folio_referenced
> + 2.24% __remove_mapping
> + 1.16% try_to_unmap
> + 0.52% try_to_unmap_flush
> 2.50%
> queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> 0.79% scan_folios
> + 1.20% try_to_inc_max_seq
> + 1.92% lru_add_drain
> + 0.73% vma_alloc_folio_noprof
> - 9.81% swap_read_folio_bdev_sync
> - 9.61% submit_bio_wait
> + 9.49% submit_bio_noacct_nocheck
> - 8.06% cluster_swap_free_nr
> - 8.02% swap_entry_range_free
> + 3.92% __mem_cgroup_uncharge_swap
> + 2.90% zram_slot_free_notify
> 0.58% clear_shadow_from_swap_cache
> - 1.32% __folio_batch_add_and_move
> - 1.30% folio_batch_move_lru
> + 1.10% folio_lruvec_lock_irqsave
Thanks for data.
It seems that the cycles shifts from spinning to memory compression.
That is expected.
> spin_lock usage is much lower.
>
> I prefer the perf lock output as it shows the exact time and user of locks.
perf cycles data is more complete. You can find which part becomes new
hot spot.
>>
>> > Following the new allocator design, many operation doesn't need to touch
>> > si->lock at all. We only need to take si->lock when doing operations
>> > across multiple clusters (eg. changing the cluster list), other
>> > operations only need to take ci->lock. So ideally allocator should
>> > always take ci->lock first, then, if needed, take si->lock. But due
>> > to historical reasons, ci->lock is used inside si->lock by design,
>> > causing lock inversion if we simply try to acquire si->lock after
>> > acquiring ci->lock.
>> >
>> > This series audited all si->lock usage, simplify legacy codes, eliminate
>> > usage of si->lock as much as possible by introducing new designs based
>> > on the new cluster allocator.
>> >
>> > Old HDD allocation codes are removed, cluster allocator is adapted
>> > with small changes for HDD usage, test is looking OK.
>>
>> I think that it's a good idea to remove HDD allocation specific code.
>> Can you check the performance of swapping to HDD? However, I understand
>> that many people have no HDD in hand.
>
> It's not hard to make cluster allocator work well with HDD in theory,
> see the commit "mm, swap: use a global swap cluster for non-rotation
> device".
> The testing is not very reliable though, I found HDD swap performance
> is very unstable because of the IO pattern of HDD, so it's just a best
> effort try.
Just to check whether code change cause something too bad for HDD. No
measurable difference is a good news.
>> > And this also removed slot cache for freeing path. The performance is
>> > better without it, and this enables other clean up and optimizations
>> > as discussed before:
>> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAMgjq7ACohT_uerSz8E_994ZZCv709Zor+43hdmesW_59W1BWw@mail.gmail.com/
>> >
>> > After this series, lock contention on si->lock is nearly unobservable
>> > with `perf lock` with the same test above :
>> >
>> > contended total wait max wait avg wait type caller
>> > ... snip ...
>> > 91 204.62 us 4.51 us 2.25 us spinlock cluster_move+0x2e
>> > ... snip ...
>> > 47 125.62 us 4.47 us 2.67 us spinlock cluster_move+0x2e
>> > ... snip ...
>> > 23 63.15 us 3.95 us 2.74 us spinlock cluster_move+0x2e
>> > ... snip ...
>> > 17 41.26 us 4.58 us 2.43 us spinlock cluster_isolate_lock+0x1d
>> > ... snip ...
>> >
>> > cluster_move and cluster_isolate_lock are basically the only users
>> > of si->lock now, performance gain is huge with reduced LOC.
>> >
>> > Tests
>> > ===
>> >
>> > Build kernel with defconfig on tmpfs with ZRAM as swap:
>> > ---
>> >
>> > Running a test matrix which is scaled up progressive for a intuitive result.
>> > The test are ran on top of tmpfs, using memory cgroup for memory limitation,
>> > on a 48c96t system.
>> >
>> > 12 test run for each case, it can be seen clearly that as concurrent job
>> > number goes higher the performance gain is higher, the performance is
>> > higher even with low concurrency.
>> >
>> > make -j<NR> | System Time (seconds) | Total Time (seconds)
>> > (NR / Mem / ZRAM) | (Before / After / Delta) | (Before / After / Delta)
>> > With 4k pages only:
>> > 6 / 192M / 3G | 5258 / 5235 / -0.3% | 1420 / 1414 / -0.3%
>> > 12 / 256M / 4G | 5518 / 5337 / -3.3% | 758 / 742 / -2.1%
>> > 24 / 384M / 5G | 7091 / 5766 / -18.7% | 476 / 422 / -11.3%
>> > 48 / 768M / 7G | 11139 / 5831 / -47.7% | 330 / 221 / -33.0%
>> > 96 / 1.5G / 10G | 21303 / 11353 / -46.7% | 283 / 180 / -36.4%
>> > With 64k mTHP:
>> > 24 / 512M / 5G | 5104 / 4641 / -18.7% | 376 / 358 / -4.8%
>> > 48 / 1G / 7G | 8693 / 4662 / -18.7% | 257 / 176 / -31.5%
>> > 96 / 2G / 10G | 17056 / 10263 / -39.8% | 234 / 169 / -27.8%
>>
>> How much is the swap in/out throughput before/after the change?
>
> This may not be too beneficial for typical throughput measurement:
> - For example doing the same test with brd will only show a ~20%
> performance improvement, still a big gain though. I think the si->lock
> spinlock wasting CPU cycles may effect CPU sensitive things like ZRAM
> even more.
20% is a good data. You don't need to guess. perf cycles profiling can
show the hot spot.
> - And simple benchmarks which just do multiple sequential swaps in/out
> in multiple thread hardly stress the allocator.
>
> I haven't found a good
> benchmark to simulate random parallel IOs on SWAP yet, I can write one
> later.
I have used anon-w-rand test case of vm-scalability to simulate random
parallel swap out.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wfg/vm-scalability.git/tree/case-anon-w-rand
> A more close to real word benchmark like build kernel test, or
> mysql/sysbench all showed great improment.
Yes. Real work load is good. We can use micro-benchmark to find out
some performance limit, for example, max possible throughput.
>>
>> When I worked on swap in/out performance before, the hot spot shifts from
>> swap related code to LRU lock and zone lock. Things may change a lot
>> now.
>>
>> If zram is used as swap device, the hot spot may become
>> compression/decompression after solving the swap lock contention. To
>> stress swap subsystem further, we may use a ram disk as swap.
>> Previously, we have used a simulated pmem device (backed by DRAM). That
>> can be setup as in,
>>
>> https://pmem.io/blog/2016/02/how-to-emulate-persistent-memory/
>>
>> After creating the raw block device: /dev/pmem0, we can do
>>
>> $ mkswap /dev/pmem0
>> $ swapon /dev/pmem0
>>
>> Can you use something similar if necessary?
>
> I used to test with brd, as described above,
brd will allocate memory during running, pmem can avoid that. perf
profile is your friends to root cause the possible issue.
> I think using ZRAM with
> test simulating real workload is more useful.
Yes. And, as I said before. Micro-benchmark has its own value.
> And I did include a Sequential SWAP test, the result is looking OK (no
> regression, minor to none improvement).
Good. At least we have no regression here.
> I can have a try with the pmem setup later, I guess the result will
> be similar to brd test.
>
>
>>
>> > With more aggressive setup, it shows clearly both the performance and
>> > fragmentation are better:
>> >
>> > tiem make -j96 / 768M memcg, 4K pages, 10G ZRAM, on Intel 8255C * 2:
>> > (avg of 4 test run)
>> > Before:
>> > Sys time: 73578.30, Real time: 864.05
>> > tiem make -j96 / 1G memcg, 4K pages, 10G ZRAM:
>> > After: (-54.7% sys time, -49.3% real time)
>> > Sys time: 33314.76, Real time: 437.67
>> >
>> > time make -j96 / 1152M memcg, 64K mTHP, 10G ZRAM, on Intel 8255C * 2:
>> > (avg of 4 test run)
>> > Before:
>> > Sys time: 74044.85, Real time: 846.51
>> > hugepages-64kB/stats/swpout: 1735216
>> > hugepages-64kB/stats/swpout_fallback: 430333
>> > After: (-51.4% sys time, -47.7% real time, -63.2% mTHP failure)
>> > Sys time: 35958.87, Real time: 442.69
>> > hugepages-64kB/stats/swpout: 1866267
>> > hugepages-64kB/stats/swpout_fallback: 158330
>> >
>> > There is a up to 54.7% improvement for build kernel test, and lower
>> > fragmentation rate. Performance improvement should be even larger for
>> > micro benchmarks
>>
>> Very good result!
>>
>> > Build kernel with tinyconfig on tmpfs with HDD as swap:
>> > ---
>> >
>> > This test is similar to above, but HDD test is very noisy and slow, the
>> > deviation is huge, so just use tinyconfig instead and take the median test
>> > result of 3 test run, which looks OK:
>> >
>> > Before this series:
>> > 114.44user 29.11system 39:42.90elapsed 6%CPU
>> > 2901232inputs+0outputs (238877major+4227640minor)pagefaults
>> >
>> > After this commit:
>> > 113.90user 23.81system 38:11.77elapsed 6%CPU
>> > 2548728inputs+0outputs (235471major+4238110minor)pagefaults
>> >
>> > Single thread SWAP:
>> > ---
>> >
>> > Sequential SWAP should also be slightly faster as we removed a lot of
>> > unnecessary parts. Test using micro benchmark for swapout/in 4G
>> > zero memory using ZRAM, 10 test runs:
>> >
>> > Swapout Before (avg. 3359304):
>> > 3353796 3358551 3371305 3356043 3367524 3355303 3355924 3354513 3360776
>> >
>> > Swapin Before (avg. 1928698):
>> > 1920283 1927183 1934105 1921373 1926562 1938261 1927726 1928636 1934155
>> >
>> > Swapout After (avg. 3347511, -0.4%):
>> > 3337863 3347948 3355235 3339081 3333134 3353006 3354917 3346055 3360359
>> >
>> > Swapin After (avg. 1922290, -0.3%):
>> > 1919101 1925743 1916810 1917007 1923930 1935152 1917403 1923549 1921913
>> >
>> > Worth noticing the patch "mm, swap: use a global swap cluster for
>> > non-rotation device" introduced minor overhead for certain tests (see
>> > the test results in commit message), but the gain from later commit
>> > covered that, it can be further improved later.
>> >
>> > Suggested-by: Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>
>> > Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
>> >
>> > Kairui Song (13):
>> > mm, swap: minor clean up for swap entry allocation
>> > mm, swap: fold swap_info_get_cont in the only caller
>> > mm, swap: remove old allocation path for HDD
>> > mm, swap: use cluster lock for HDD
>> > mm, swap: clean up device availability check
>> > mm, swap: clean up plist removal and adding
>> > mm, swap: hold a reference of si during scan and clean up flags
>> > mm, swap: use an enum to define all cluster flags and wrap flags
>> > changes
>> > mm, swap: reduce contention on device lock
>> > mm, swap: simplify percpu cluster updating
>> > mm, swap: introduce a helper for retrieving cluster from offset
>> > mm, swap: use a global swap cluster for non-rotation device
>> > mm, swap_slots: remove slot cache for freeing path
>> >
>> > fs/btrfs/inode.c | 1 -
>> > fs/iomap/swapfile.c | 1 -
>> > include/linux/swap.h | 36 +-
>> > include/linux/swap_slots.h | 3 -
>> > mm/page_io.c | 1 -
>> > mm/swap_slots.c | 78 +--
>> > mm/swapfile.c | 1198 ++++++++++++++++--------------------
>> > 7 files changed, 558 insertions(+), 760 deletions(-)
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists