Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-137809-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Zhaoyu Liu <liuzhaoyu.zackary@bytedance.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,  ryncsn@gmail.com,
  nphamcs@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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: swap: prejudgement swap_has_cache to avoid page
 allocation
In-Reply-To: <20240409145740.GA543696@bytedance> (Zhaoyu Liu's message of
	"Tue, 9 Apr 2024 22:57:40 +0800")
References: <20240408121439.GA252652@bytedance>
	<20240408132704.f966adc8d3928df4d3b8c0a9@linux-foundation.org>
	<87edbf8hta.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
	<20240409145740.GA543696@bytedance>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 09:45:41 +0800
Message-ID: <877ch66ldm.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

Zhaoyu Liu <liuzhaoyu.zackary@bytedance.com> writes:

> 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@bytedance.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 cache,
>> >> 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 upon
>> > 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 = __swap_map(si, entry);
>   mapcount = swap_map & ~SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
>   if (!mapcount && swap_slot_cache_enabled)
>   ...
>   hascache = swap_map & SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
>   /* Could judge that it's being added to swap cache with high probability */
>   if (mapcount && hascache)
>     goto skip_alloc;
>   ...
> ---
> In doing so, there is no additional use of locks.

Yes.  This can remove the lock-contention.  But, you need to prove that
it's necessary in the first place.

--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

>> >> So skip page allocation if SWAP_HAS_CACHE was set, just
>> >> schedule_timeout_uninterruptible and continue to acquire page
>> >> via filemap_get_folio() from swap cache, to speedup
>> >> __read_swap_cache_async.