Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220407020953.475626-1-shy828301@gmail.com> <Yk6cutNf5sOuYbDl@ziqianlu-nuc9qn>
 <CAHbLzkq+eKcKCsxXDTiOcBxk8FjMdWBqOxwi4N_NG7PZWbAAkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Yl/FS9enAD4V8jG3@ziqianlu-nuc9qn> <f27ec36beb3cf1dbbfc3b8835e586d5d6fe7f561.camel@intel.com>
 <YmFmL42W+OrORElV@ziqianlu-nuc9qn>
In-Reply-To: <YmFmL42W+OrORElV@ziqianlu-nuc9qn>
From:   Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Apr 2022 10:19:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHbLzkqU7T_ABvQEmLe382JtwcB=m2-Y+smo8ZBDdQF4C=b_yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: swap: determine swap device by using page nid
To:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
Cc:     "ying.huang@intel.com" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 7:12 AM Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 03:49:21PM +0800, ying.huang@intel.com wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 16:33 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 10:36:54AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 1:12 AM Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 07:09:53PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > > > > The swap devices are linked to per node priority lists, the swap device
> > > > > > closer to the node has higher priority on that node's priority list.
> > > > > > This is supposed to improve I/O latency, particularly for some fast
> > > > > > devices.  But the current code gets nid by calling numa_node_id() which
> > > > > > actually returns the nid that the reclaimer is running on instead of the
> > > > > > nid that the page belongs to.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Right.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Pass the page's nid dow to get_swap_pages() in order to pick up the
> > > > > > right swap device.  But it doesn't work for the swap slots cache which
> > > > > > is per cpu.  We could skip swap slots cache if the current node is not
> > > > > > the page's node, but it may be overkilling. So keep using the current
> > > > > > node's swap slots cache.  The issue was found by visual code inspection
> > > > > > so it is not sure how much improvement could be achieved due to lack of
> > > > > > suitable testing device.  But anyway the current code does violate the
> > > > > > design.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I intentionally used the reclaimer's nid because I think when swapping
> > > > > out to a device, it is faster when the device is on the same node as
> > > > > the cpu.
> > > >
> > > > OK, the offline discussion with Huang Ying showed the design was to
> > > > have page's nid in order to achieve better I/O performance (more
> > > > noticeable on faster devices) since the reclaimer may be running on a
> > > > different node from the reclaimed page.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway, I think I can make a test case where the workload allocates all
> > > > > its memory on the remote node and its workingset memory is larger then
> > > > > the available memory so swap is triggered, then we can see which way
> > > > > achieves better performance. Sounds reasonable to you?
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, definitely, thank you so much. I don't have a fast enough device
> > > > by hand to show the difference right now. If you could get some data
> > > > it would be perfect.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Failed to find a test box that has two NVMe disks attached to different
> > > nodes and since Shanghai is locked down right now, we couldn't install
> > > another NVMe on the box so I figured it might be OK to test on a box that
> > > has a single NVMe attached to node 0 like this:
> > >
> > > 1) restrict the test processes to run on node 0 and allocate on node 1;
> > > 2) restrict the test processes to run on node 1 and allocate on node 0.
> > >
> > > In case 1), the reclaimer's node id is the same as the swap device's so
> > > it's the same as current behaviour and in case 2), the page's node id is
> > > the same as the swap device's so it's what your patch proposed.
> > >
> > > The test I used is vm-scalability/case-swap-w-rand:
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wfg/vm-scalability.git/tree/case-swap-w-seq
> > > which spawns $nr_task processes and each will mmap $size and then
> > > randomly write to that area. I set nr_task=32 and $size=4G, so a total
> > > of 128G memory will be needed and I used memory.limit_in_bytes to
> > > restrict the available memory to 64G, to make sure swap is triggered.
> > >
> > > The reason why cgroup is used is to avoid waking up the per-node kswapd
> > > which can trigger swapping with reclaimer/page/swap device all having the
> > > same node id.
> > >
> > > And I don't see a measuable difference from the result:
> > > case1(using reclaimer's node id) vm-scalability.throughput: 10574 KB/s
> > > case2(using page's node id)      vm-scalability.throughput: 10567 KB/s
> > >
> > > My interpretation of the result is, when reclaiming a remote page, it
> > > doesn't matter much which swap device to use if the swap device is a IO
> > > device.
> > >
> > > Later Ying reminded me we have test box that has optane installed on
> > > different nodes so I also tested there: Icelake 2 sockets server with 2
> > > optane installed on each node. I did the test there like this:
> > > 1) restrict the test processes to run on node 0 and allocate on node 1
> > >    and only swapon pmem0, which is the optane backed swap device on node 0;
> > > 2) restrict the test processes to run on node 0 and allocate on node 1
> > >    and only swapon pmem1, which is the optane backed swap device on node 1.
> > >
> > > So case 1) is current behaviour and case 2) is what your patch proposed.
> > >
> > > With the same test and the same nr_task/size, the result is:
> > > case1(using reclaimer's node id) vm-scalability.throughput: 71033 KB/s
> > > case2(using page's node id)      vm-scalability.throughput: 58753 KB/s
> > >
> >
> > The per-node swap device support is more about swap-in latency than
> > swap-out throughput.  I suspect the test case is more about swap-out
> > throughput.  perf profiling can show this.
> >
>
> On another thought, swap out can very well affect swap in latency:
> since swap is involved, the available memory is in short supply and swap
> in may very likely need to reclaim a page and that reclaim can involve a
> swap out, so swap out performance can also affect swap in latency.

If you count in page allocation latency, yes. I think we could just
measure the I/O latency, for example, swap_readpage()? I'm supposed
the per-node swap device is aimed to minimize I/O latency.

>
> > For swap-in latency, we can use pmbench, which can output latency
> > information.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Huang, Ying
> >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
>