Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-137428-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240408121439.GA252652@bytedance> <20240408132704.f966adc8d3928df4d3b8c0a9@linux-foundation.org>
 <87edbf8hta.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20240409145740.GA543696@bytedance>
In-Reply-To: <20240409145740.GA543696@bytedance>
From: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 10:52:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKEwX=MBts2mGgTE__VP-ZVMrMFTzQnbTAkMPTJs3KNRQ2QDjg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: swap: prejudgement swap_has_cache to avoid page allocation
To: Zhaoyu Liu <liuzhaoyu.zackary@bytedance.com>
Cc: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, ryncsn@gmail.com, 
	songmuchun@bytedance.com, david@redhat.com, chrisl@kernel.org, 
	guo.ziliang@zte.com.cn, yosryahmed@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 7:57=E2=80=AFAM Zhaoyu Liu
<liuzhaoyu.zackary@bytedance.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 09:07:29AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> > Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> >
> > > On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 20:14:39 +0800 Zhaoyu Liu <liuzhaoyu.zackary@byted=
ance.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Based on qemu arm64 - latest kernel + 100M memory + 1024M swapfile.
> > >> Create 1G anon mmap and set it to shared, and has two processes
> > >> randomly access the shared memory. When they are racing on swap cach=
e,
> > >> on average, each "alloc_pages_mpol + swapcache_prepare + folio_put"
> > >> took about 1475 us.
> > >
> > > And what effect does this patch have upon the measured time?  ANd upo=
n
> > > overall runtime?
> >
> > And the patch will cause increased lock contention, please test with
> > more processes and perhaps HDD swap device too.
>
> Hi Ying,
>
> Thank you for your suggestion.
> It may indeed cause some lock contention, as mentioned by Kairui before.
>
> If so, is it recommended?
> ---
>   unsigned char swap_map, mapcount, hascache;
>   ...
>   /* Return raw data of the si->swap_map[offset] */
>   swap_map =3D __swap_map(si, entry);
>   mapcount =3D swap_map & ~SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
>   if (!mapcount && swap_slot_cache_enabled)
>   ...
>   hascache =3D swap_map & SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
>   /* Could judge that it's being added to swap cache with high probabilit=
y */
>   if (mapcount && hascache)
>     goto skip_alloc;
>   ...
> ---
> In doing so, there is no additional use of locks.
>

Hmm so is this a lockless check now? Ummmm... Could someone with more
expertise in the Linux kernel memory model double check that this is
even a valid state we're observing here? Looks like we're performing
an unguarded, unsynchronized, non-atomic read with the possibility of
concurrent write - is there a chance we might see partial/invalid
results?

Could you also test with zswap enabled (and perhaps with zswap
shrinker enabled)?