Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-161532-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: <20240417160842.76665-1-ryncsn@gmail.com> <87zftlx25p.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <Zico_U_i5ZQu9a1N@casper.infradead.org> <87o79zsdku.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <CANeU7Q=YYFWPBMHPPeOQDxO9=yAiQP8w90e2mO0U+hBuzCV1RQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANeU7Q=YYFWPBMHPPeOQDxO9=yAiQP8w90e2mO0U+hBuzCV1RQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kairui Song <ryncsn@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 01:37:04 +0800
Message-ID: <CAMgjq7AD=n0T8C=pn_NM2nr-njNKXOxLh49GRrnP0ugGvuATcA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] mm/swap: optimize swap cache search space
To: Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>
Cc: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>, 
	Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, 
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>, 
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 7:16=E2=80=AFAM Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Ying,
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 7:26=E2=80=AFPM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com=
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Matthew,
> >
> > Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> writes:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 03:54:58PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> > >> Is it possible to add "start_offset" support in xarray, so "index"
> > >> will subtract "start_offset" before looking up / inserting?
> > >
> > > We kind of have that with XA_FLAGS_ZERO_BUSY which is used for
> > > XA_FLAGS_ALLOC1.  But that's just one bit for the entry at 0.  We cou=
ld
> > > generalise it, but then we'd have to store that somewhere and there's
> > > no obvious good place to store it that wouldn't enlarge struct xarray=
,
> > > which I'd be reluctant to do.
> > >
> > >> Is it possible to use multiple range locks to protect one xarray to
> > >> improve the lock scalability?  This is why we have multiple "struct
> > >> address_space" for one swap device.  And, we may have same lock
> > >> contention issue for large files too.
> > >
> > > It's something I've considered.  The issue is search marks.  If we de=
lete
> > > an entry, we may have to walk all the way up the xarray clearing bits=
 as
> > > we go and I'd rather not grab a lock at each level.  There's a conven=
ient
> > > 4 byte hole between nr_values and parent where we could put it.
> > >
> > > Oh, another issue is that we use i_pages.xa_lock to synchronise
> > > address_space.nrpages, so I'm not sure that a per-node lock will help=
.
> >
> > Thanks for looking at this.
> >
> > > But I'm conscious that there are workloads which show contention on
> > > xa_lock as their limiting factor, so I'm open to ideas to improve all
> > > these things.
> >
> > I have no idea so far because my very limited knowledge about xarray.
>
> For the swap file usage, I have been considering an idea to remove the
> index part of the xarray from swap cache. Swap cache is different from
> file cache in a few aspects.
> For one if we want to have a folio equivalent of "large swap entry".
> Then the natural alignment of those swap offset on does not make
> sense. Ideally we should be able to write the folio to un-aligned swap
> file locations.
>

Hi Chris,

This sound interesting, I have a few questions though...

Are you suggesting we handle swap on file and swap on device
differently? Swap on file is much less frequently used than swap on
device I think.

And what do you mean "index part of the xarray"? If we need a cache,
xarray still seems one of the best choices to hold the content.

> The other aspect for swap files is that, we already have different
> data structures organized around swap offset, swap_map and
> swap_cgroup. If we group the swap related data structure together. We
> can add a pointer to a union of folio or a shadow swap entry. We can
> use atomic updates on the swap struct member or breakdown the access
> lock by ranges just like swap cluster does.
>
> I want to discuss those ideas in the upcoming LSF/MM meet up as well.

Looking forward to it!

>
> Chris