Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-107294-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Cc: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>,  Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
  <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,  <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
  <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>,  <chrisl@kernel.org>,  <david@redhat.com>,
  <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,  <kasong@tencent.com>,
  <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,  <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
  <mhocko@suse.com>,  <nphamcs@gmail.com>,  <shy828301@gmail.com>,
  <steven.price@arm.com>,  <surenb@google.com>,
  <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,  <xiang@kernel.org>,
  <yosryahmed@google.com>,  <yuzhao@google.com>,  "Chuanhua Han"
 <hanchuanhua@oppo.com>,  Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 5/5] mm: support large folios swapin as a whole
In-Reply-To: <9ec62266-26f1-46b6-8bb7-9917d04ed04e@arm.com> (Ryan Roberts's
	message of "Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:45:24 +0000")
References: <20240304081348.197341-1-21cnbao@gmail.com>
	<20240304081348.197341-6-21cnbao@gmail.com>
	<87wmq3yji6.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
	<CAGsJ_4x+t_X4Tn15=QPbH58e1S1FwOoM3t37T+cUE8-iKoENLw@mail.gmail.com>
	<87sf0rx3d6.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
	<CAGsJ_4xna1xKz7J=MWDR3h543UvnS9v0-+ggVc5fFzpFOzfpyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<87jzm0wblq.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
	<CAGsJ_4wTU3cmzXMCu+yQRMnEiCEUA8rO5=QQUopgG0RMnHYd5g@mail.gmail.com>
	<9ec62266-26f1-46b6-8bb7-9917d04ed04e@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 17:20:16 +0800
Message-ID: <87jzlyvar3.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii

Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> writes:

>>>> I agree phones are not the only platform. But Rome wasn't built in a
>>>> day. I can only get
>>>> started on a hardware which I can easily reach and have enough hardware/test
>>>> resources on it. So we may take the first step which can be applied on
>>>> a real product
>>>> and improve its performance, and step by step, we broaden it and make it
>>>> widely useful to various areas  in which I can't reach :-)
>>>
>>> We must guarantee the normal swap path runs correctly and has no
>>> performance regression when developing SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO optimization.
>>> So we have to put some effort on the normal path test anyway.
>>>
>>>> so probably we can have a sysfs "enable" entry with default "n" or
>>>> have a maximum
>>>> swap-in order as Ryan's suggestion [1] at the beginning,
>>>>
>>>> "
>>>> So in the common case, swap-in will pull in the same size of folio as was
>>>> swapped-out. Is that definitely the right policy for all folio sizes? Certainly
>>>> it makes sense for "small" large folios (e.g. up to 64K IMHO). But I'm not sure
>>>> it makes sense for 2M THP; As the size increases the chances of actually needing
>>>> all of the folio reduces so chances are we are wasting IO. There are similar
>>>> arguments for CoW, where we currently copy 1 page per fault - it probably makes
>>>> sense to copy the whole folio up to a certain size.
>>>> "
>
> I thought about this a bit more. No clear conclusions, but hoped this might help
> the discussion around policy:
>
> The decision about the size of the THP is made at first fault, with some help
> from user space and in future we might make decisions to split based on
> munmap/mremap/etc hints. In an ideal world, the fact that we have had to swap
> the THP out at some point in its lifetime should not impact on its size. It's
> just being moved around in the system and the reason for our original decision
> should still hold.
>
> So from that PoV, it would be good to swap-in to the same size that was
> swapped-out.

Sorry, I don't agree with this.  It's better to swap-in and swap-out in
smallest size if the page is only accessed seldom to avoid to waste
memory.

> But we only kind-of keep that information around, via the swap
> entry contiguity and alignment. With that scheme it is possible that multiple
> virtually adjacent but not physically contiguous folios get swapped-out to
> adjacent swap slot ranges and then they would be swapped-in to a single, larger
> folio. This is not ideal, and I think it would be valuable to try to maintain
> the original folio size information with the swap slot. One way to do this would
> be to store the original order for which the cluster was allocated in the
> cluster. Then we at least know that a given swap slot is either for a folio of
> that order or an order-0 folio (due to cluster exhaustion/scanning). Can we
> steal a bit from swap_map to determine which case it is? Or are there better
> approaches?

[snip]

--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying