[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250804172439.2331-3-ryncsn@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 01:24:39 +0800
From: Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com>
To: linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>,
Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>,
Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] mm, swap: prefer nonfull over free clusters
From: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
We prefer a free cluster over a nonfull cluster whenever a CPU local
cluster is drained to respect the SSD discard behavior [1]. It's not
a best practice for non-discarding devices. And this is causing a
chigher fragmentation rate.
So for a non-discarding device, prefer nonfull over free clusters. This
reduces the fragmentation issue by a lot.
Testing with make -j96, defconfig, using 64k mTHP, 8G ZRAM:
Before: sys time: 6121.0s 64kB/swpout: 1638155 64kB/swpout_fallback: 189562
After: sys time: 6145.3s 64kB/swpout: 1761110 64kB/swpout_fallback: 66071
Testing with make -j96, defconfig, using 64k mTHP, 10G ZRAM:
Before: sys time 5527.9s 64kB/swpout: 1789358 64kB/swpout_fallback: 17813
After: sys time 5538.3s 64kB/swpout: 1813133 64kB/swpout_fallback: 0
Performance is basically unchanged, and the large allocation failure rate
is lower. Enabling all mTHP sizes showed a more significant result:
Using the same test setup with 10G ZRAM and enabling all mTHP sizes:
128kB swap failure rate:
Before: swpout:449548 swpout_fallback:55894
After: swpout:497519 swpout_fallback:3204
256kB swap failure rate:
Before: swpout:63938 swpout_fallback:2154
After: swpout:65698 swpout_fallback:324
512kB swap failure rate:
Before: swpout:11971 swpout_fallback:2218
After: swpout:14606 swpout_fallback:4
2M swap failure rate:
Before: swpout:12 swpout_fallback:1578
After: swpout:1253 swpout_fallback:15
The success rate of large allocations is much higher.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/87v8242vng.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com/ [1]
Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
---
mm/swapfile.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
index 5fdb3cb2b8b7..4a0cf4fb348d 100644
--- a/mm/swapfile.c
+++ b/mm/swapfile.c
@@ -908,18 +908,20 @@ static unsigned long cluster_alloc_swap_entry(struct swap_info_struct *si, int o
}
new_cluster:
- ci = isolate_lock_cluster(si, &si->free_clusters);
- if (ci) {
- found = alloc_swap_scan_cluster(si, ci, cluster_offset(si, ci),
- order, usage);
- if (found)
- goto done;
+ /*
+ * If the device need discard, prefer new cluster over nonfull
+ * to spread out the writes.
+ */
+ if (si->flags & SWP_PAGE_DISCARD) {
+ ci = isolate_lock_cluster(si, &si->free_clusters);
+ if (ci) {
+ found = alloc_swap_scan_cluster(si, ci, cluster_offset(si, ci),
+ order, usage);
+ if (found)
+ goto done;
+ }
}
- /* Try reclaim from full clusters if free clusters list is drained */
- if (vm_swap_full())
- swap_reclaim_full_clusters(si, false);
-
if (order < PMD_ORDER) {
while ((ci = isolate_lock_cluster(si, &si->nonfull_clusters[order]))) {
found = alloc_swap_scan_cluster(si, ci, cluster_offset(si, ci),
@@ -927,7 +929,23 @@ static unsigned long cluster_alloc_swap_entry(struct swap_info_struct *si, int o
if (found)
goto done;
}
+ }
+ if (!(si->flags & SWP_PAGE_DISCARD)) {
+ ci = isolate_lock_cluster(si, &si->free_clusters);
+ if (ci) {
+ found = alloc_swap_scan_cluster(si, ci, cluster_offset(si, ci),
+ order, usage);
+ if (found)
+ goto done;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* Try reclaim full clusters if free and nonfull lists are drained */
+ if (vm_swap_full())
+ swap_reclaim_full_clusters(si, false);
+
+ if (order < PMD_ORDER) {
/*
* Scan only one fragment cluster is good enough. Order 0
* allocation will surely success, and large allocation
--
2.50.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists