Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-31020-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240117-zswap-xarray-v1-0-6daa86c08fae@kernel.org>
 <CAJD7tkbQb5nAQdhHXELQsUWs8KhwnoOZ7C8Eu2o7tCYSKeY9Ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJD7tkb7GmMARE9ueyOCZz9wBbANhofUOHnen+b28sxE9tDy1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <7f52ad78-e10b-438a-b380-49451bf6f64f@bytedance.com> <CAJD7tkaeBTforGTQ8ia_6-1fd5hf-zwkBcd_kW8Bk=zdO+Qnvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF8kJuNPPruLDOEqH-f-w1zw-TSuWkUZsQ43Qe_EtycapXgkbQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3a1b124d-4a97-4400-9714-0cceac53bd34@bytedance.com> <CAF8kJuN_3eaJjwLx_hpwN_ahfHa3qT1kN+NQdYd7vokZj458mA@mail.gmail.com>
 <9b2f8385-735b-4341-b521-a42c9a9cb04c@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <9b2f8385-735b-4341-b521-a42c9a9cb04c@bytedance.com>
From: Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 02:26:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CAF8kJuNvxZgMvW+7gN1anpASKXdaPfYi=0pSfmJftHkzXnV-ag@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] RFC: zswap tree use xarray instead of RB tree
To: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
Cc: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	=?UTF-8?B?V2VpIFh177+8?= <weixugc@google.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>, 
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>, Chun-Tse Shao <ctshao@google.com>, 
	=?UTF-8?Q?Suren_Baghdasaryan=EF=BF=BC?= <surenb@google.com>, 
	Brain Geffon <bgeffon@google.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, 
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>, Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>, 
	Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Kairui Song <kasong@tencent.com>, 
	Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@bytedance.com>, Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>, 
	Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>, "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>, 
	"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 10:19=E2=80=AFPM Chengming Zhou
<zhouchengming@bytedance.com> wrote:
>
> On 2024/1/19 12:59, Chris Li wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:35=E2=80=AFPM Chengming Zhou
> > <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>                     mm-stable           zswap-split-tree    zswap-x=
array
> >>>>> real                1m10.442s           1m4.157s            1m9.962=
s
> >>>>> user                17m48.232s          17m41.477s          17m45.8=
87s
> >>>>> sys                 8m13.517s           5m2.226s            7m59.30=
5s
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Looks like the contention of concurrency is still there, I haven't
> >>>>> look into the code yet, will review it later.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the quick test. Interesting to see the sys usage drop for
> >>> the xarray case even with the spin lock.
> >>> Not sure if the 13 second saving is statistically significant or not.
> >>>
> >>> We might need to have both xarray and split trees for the zswap. It i=
s
> >>> likely removing the spin lock wouldn't be able to make up the 35%
> >>> difference. That is just my guess. There is only one way to find out.
> >>
> >> Yes, I totally agree with this! IMHO, concurrent zswap_store paths sti=
ll
> >> have to contend for the xarray spinlock even though we would have conv=
erted
> >> the rb-tree to the xarray structure at last. So I think we should have=
 both.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> BTW, do you have a script I can run to replicate your results?
> >
> > Hi Chengming,
> >
> > Thanks for your script.
> >
> >>
> >> ```
> >> #!/bin/bash
> >>
> >> testname=3D"build-kernel-tmpfs"
> >> cgroup=3D"/sys/fs/cgroup/$testname"
> >>
> >> tmpdir=3D"/tmp/vm-scalability-tmp"
> >> workdir=3D"$tmpdir/$testname"
> >>
> >> memory_max=3D"$((2 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024))"
> >>
> >> linux_src=3D"/root/zcm/linux-6.6.tar.xz"
> >> NR_TASK=3D32
> >>
> >> swapon ~/zcm/swapfile
> >
> > How big is your swapfile here?
>
> The swapfile is big enough here, I use a 50GB swapfile.

Thanks,

>
> >
> > It seems you have only one swapfile there. That can explain the content=
ion.
> > Have you tried multiple swapfiles for the same test?
> > That should reduce the contention without using your patch.
> Do you mean to have many 64MB swapfiles to swapon at the same time?

64MB is too small. There are limits to MAX_SWAPFILES. It is less than
(32 - n) swap files.
If you want to use 50G swap space, you can have MAX_SWAPFILES, each
swapfile 50GB / MAX_SWAPFILES.

> Maybe it's feasible to test,

Of course it is testable, I am curious to see the test results.

> I'm not sure how swapout will choose.

It will rotate through the same priority swap files first.
swapfile.c: get_swap_pages().

> But in our usecase, we normally have only one swapfile.

Is there a good reason why you can't use more than one swapfile?
One swapfile will not take the full advantage of the existing code.
Even if you split the zswap trees within a swapfile. With only one
swapfile, you will still be having lock contention on "(struct
swap_info_struct).lock".
It is one lock per swapfile.
Using more than one swap file should get you better results.

Chris