Received: by 2002:ab2:b82:0:b0:1f3:401:3cfb with SMTP id 2csp767702lqh; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:19:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCUBxC3FcljrNDNKz4EFF/jCXXA8ipGeByMwrAXXgbPPdTdLqjam1660LO6Ck+mwIiP3ntBd5woEc7549cAcqA3LUPAS7n7rsYeqTj7hKA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG4blP7Uo/RiSfXrFCVOyjWSf9R8lBtJtCj5s7xzNdk9WFzftwSBq9mWyPonydOUVu6fLjV X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:228e:b0:a47:38ba:d24a with SMTP id p14-20020a170906228e00b00a4738bad24amr452662eja.18.1711667976356; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:19:36 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from am.mirrors.kernel.org (am.mirrors.kernel.org. [2604:1380:4601:e00::3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j2-20020a170906410200b00a4737d45afasi1145993ejk.449.2024.03.28.16.19.36 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:19:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-123816-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=OZSpmTHY; arc=fail (body hash mismatch); spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-123816-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="linux-kernel+bounces-123816-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org"; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: from smtp.subspace.kernel.org (wormhole.subspace.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by am.mirrors.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE8E01F24CCA for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:19:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB4350246; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:19:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="OZSpmTHY" Received: from mail-qv1-f49.google.com (mail-qv1-f49.google.com [209.85.219.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 866531CAA4 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:19:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.49 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711667968; cv=none; b=SWCj3P1f7PxCA3osveDQYj1JJiCJFBGw64GQvIt4TV8+dpmT+Jxc3r9yBARzj8DBeUWxT6WqRzgZUQ0+7sPKd1DCrsaM80xKZd7q8du1WjDP1xNeDCzR/4f1v2LlXAT+IfTp3QQSxZapGROWv9eTC1Ju4DneD85ouFzlJH7UQPE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711667968; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VP6W286q1NN/0DtU5s1MUXxqF5nS+yIHVLDQLXHMLP4=; h=MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=GhzMCyeHHA9x6lSlM7uOKw1onpktWkKu0AMju8mil0AVXQUZpUICMncCZHvzBGG3LeRZ6/I1c6O7IN7Tixx/y8tl/p13PiaPljei/wO66oGvWXy0kSXShIpvQG7wKRW3lZh4thkSheXMfXzBT55sxbnxhPjgMZ50LfgPzUffLCw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=OZSpmTHY; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.49 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-qv1-f49.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-690be110d0dso8733166d6.3 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:19:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1711667965; x=1712272765; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=SIbaw2eMeenxypIQFqFji+0xGTljNvCMCxvoti4qhyA=; b=OZSpmTHYzbspO7uIaCQBCNTBfHLcYuy/FjD4eb/GFQBZXPs4CJHYLJfd+Fe94wgbap tBGz+5e3oMpXz3VKko7vpTrXvm9CFmFE8zwrTlD9xp9EgCAZN1a1m+kVDKvQ3Np81tSX 00aJCPFJ2BU0E6WqpV5JUQtegnqhFuauVV2ajhLMq23V1+2SH0WNwsy3UKCI3IBnczZ1 TZvq7bjyeRoHgb3vjjmnZQapYgAtYPKqvL7nGXdh6j8sNypteoDiVkYg2M08Xy6KhdjZ ipkxIIQrht19ZYsnA91YfexuU2qDBXCEtvgkPd7D10g2tAEyUpKJkLQDTERZTvMO0XmD eBdg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1711667965; x=1712272765; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=SIbaw2eMeenxypIQFqFji+0xGTljNvCMCxvoti4qhyA=; b=Q0Z/Wjg0LFdOS21WC0Fpicv0T4bIvWQQ490cY+lsvBIAITm20qmZ+8PoGWW5/hLJyz w6HovgIcv44Q7+DWz0KkAjqJFykM3sCXfGADHsrY5vGTmPk8mnZ4xtt+m1kbAT2dYTSG PeYtHARToeSwdnDt2IGni3WT8jduXPSBxHI+X248wzXL7mZCsA9ZuZMa6RMbZrwBNIFE +qFzbKmn/5tCm3EvdMrHLPADpHnrdh/svDgSuPBhfL7H/ksKwh5nA/u0HQOvzoF/zaSo h10/sIWoZezY/Sp1IszHe35AkN1QSAFZpxtCdUX/c4YOEtCZKbkPQ33wvZBHRCfHG8t7 YVPw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXTT5ooJEZMKk518M0KehHbYlp7R5W0hcEm6LykUZ+c32TVU/HcTzG6WjHpZ5ydAsr3p7VebZ9dB7hZn1wPAKBiIdtUUwgwNHFRiWaW X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzfDPZJ8yGFMR4PYHW/YjGdkhaOzyUGDRXGxkIrWe7eqEo+WA+2 SmttJyfGtr9uxTntuG6MyHeG7hZTxs8TdGRsZehNcmNfiSCVtBGtgeVRLsfjQH0UUtu9XUBfX50 QZJSd1LErMwk+U0nFqM9MJ6+DRcEQOg2KnNH6uw== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:f549:0:b0:698:e89b:6982 with SMTP id p9-20020a0cf549000000b00698e89b6982mr681948qvm.28.1711667965306; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20240325235018.2028408-1-yosryahmed@google.com> <20240325235018.2028408-7-yosryahmed@google.com> <20240328193149.GF7597@cmpxchg.org> <20240328210709.GH7597@cmpxchg.org> In-Reply-To: <20240328210709.GH7597@cmpxchg.org> From: Nhat Pham Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:19:14 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/9] mm: zswap: drop support for non-zero same-filled pages handling To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Yosry Ahmed , Andrew Morton , Chengming Zhou , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 2:07=E2=80=AFPM Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 01:23:42PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 12:31=E2=80=AFPM Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 11:50:14PM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > > > The current same-filled pages handling supports pages filled with a= ny > > > > repeated word-sized pattern. However, in practice, most of these sh= ould > > > > be zero pages anyway. Other patterns should be nearly as common. > > > > > > > > Drop the support for non-zero same-filled pages, but keep the names= of > > > > knobs exposed to userspace as "same_filled", which isn't entirely > > > > inaccurate. > > > > > > > > This yields some nice code simplification and enables a following p= atch > > > > that eliminates the need to allocate struct zswap_entry for those p= ages > > > > completely. > > > > > > > > There is also a very small performance improvement observed over 50= runs > > > > of kernel build test (kernbench) comparing the mean build time on a > > > > skylake machine when building the kernel in a cgroup v1 container w= ith a > > > > 3G limit: > > > > > > > > base patched % diff > > > > real 70.167 69.915 -0.359% > > > > user 2953.068 2956.147 +0.104% > > > > sys 2612.811 2594.718 -0.692% > > > > > > > > This probably comes from more optimized operations like memchr_inv(= ) and > > > > clear_highpage(). Note that the percentage of zero-filled pages dur= ing > > > > this test was only around 1.5% on average, and was not affected by = this > > > > patch. Practical workloads could have a larger proportion of such p= ages > > > > (e.g. Johannes observed around 10% [1]), so the performance improve= ment > > > > should be larger. > > > > > > > > [1]https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240320210716.GH294822@cmpxchg= org/ > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed > > > > > > This is an interesting direction to pursue, but I actually thinkg it > > > doesn't go far enough. Either way, I think it needs more data. > > > > > > 1) How frequent are non-zero-same-filled pages? Difficult to > > > generalize, but if you could gather some from your fleet, that > > > would be useful. If you can devise a portable strategy, I'd also b= e > > > more than happy to gather this on ours (although I think you have > > > more widespread zswap use, whereas we have more disk swap.) > > > > I am trying to collect the data, but there are.. hurdles. It would > > take some time, so I was hoping the data could be collected elsewhere > > if possible. > > > > The idea I had was to hook a BPF program to the entry of > > zswap_fill_page() and create a histogram of the "value" argument. We > > would get more coverage by hooking it to the return of > > zswap_is_page_same_filled() and only updating the histogram if the > > return value is true, as it includes pages in zswap that haven't been > > swapped in. > > > > However, with zswap_is_page_same_filled() the BPF program will run in > > all zswap stores, whereas for zswap_fill_page() it will only run when > > needed. Not sure if this makes a practical difference tbh. > > > > > > > > 2) The fact that we're doing any of this pattern analysis in zswap at > > > all strikes me as a bit misguided. Being efficient about repetitiv= e > > > patterns is squarely in the domain of a compression algorithm. Do > > > we not trust e.g. zstd to handle this properly? > > > > I thought about this briefly, but I didn't follow through. I could try > > to collect some data by swapping out different patterns and observing > > how different compression algorithms react. That would be interesting > > for sure. > > > > > > > > I'm guessing this goes back to inefficient packing from something > > > like zbud, which would waste half a page on one repeating byte. > > > > > > But zsmalloc can do 32 byte objects. It's also a batching slab > > > allocator, where storing a series of small, same-sized objects is > > > quite fast. > > > > > > Add to that the additional branches, the additional kmap, the extr= a > > > scanning of every single page for patterns - all in the fast path > > > of zswap, when we already know that the vast majority of incoming > > > pages will need to be properly compressed anyway. > > > > > > Maybe it's time to get rid of the special handling entirely? > > > > We would still be wasting some memory (~96 bytes between zswap_entry > > and zsmalloc object), and wasting cycling allocating them. This could > > be made up for by cycles saved by removing the handling. We will be > > saving some branches for sure. I am not worried about kmap as I think > > it's a noop in most cases. > > Yes, true. > > > I am interested to see how much we could save by removing scanning for > > patterns. We may not save much if we abort after reading a few words > > in most cases, but I guess we could also be scanning a considerable > > amount before aborting. On the other hand, we would be reading the > > page contents into cache anyway for compression, so maybe it doesn't > > really matter? > > > > I will try to collect some data about this. I will start by trying to > > find out how the compression algorithms handle same-filled pages. If > > they can compress it efficiently, then I will try to get more data on > > the tradeoff from removing the handling. > > I do wonder if this could be overthinking it, too. > > Double checking the numbers on our fleet, a 96 additional bytes for > each same-filled entry would result in a > > 1) p50 waste of 0.008% of total memory, and a > > 2) p99 waste of 0.06% of total memory. > > And this is without us having even thought about trying to make > zsmalloc more efficient for this particular usecase - which might be > the better point of attack, if we think it's actually worth it. > > So my take is that unless removing it would be outright horrible from > a %sys POV (which seems pretty unlikely), IMO it would be fine to just > delete it entirely with a "not worth the maintenance cost" argument. > > If you turn the argument around, and somebody would submit the code as > it is today, with the numbers being what they are above, I'm not sure > we would even accept it! The context guy is here :) Not arguing for one way or another, but I did find the original patch that introduced same filled page handling: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/a85f878b443f8d2b91ba76f09da21ac0af= 22e07f https://lore.kernel.org/all/20171018104832epcms5p1b2232e2236258de3d03d1344d= de9fce0@epcms5p1/T/#u The number looks impressive, and there is some detail about the experiment setup, but I can't seem to find what the allocator + compressor used. Which, as Johannes has pointed out, matters a lot. A good compressor (which should work on arguably the most trivial data pattern there is) + a backend allocator that is capable of handling small objects well could make this case really efficient, without resorting to special handling at the zswap level.