Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-208867-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 13:43:10 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
To: Chuanhua Han <chuanhuahan@gmail.com>
Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>, Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>, 
	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, willy@infradead.org, xiang@kernel.org, ying.huang@intel.com, 
	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
Message-ID: <emvsj7wfy24dzr6uxyac2qotp7nsdi7hnesihaldkvgo3mfzrf@u7fafr7mc3e7>
References: <20240304081348.197341-1-21cnbao@gmail.com>
 <20240304081348.197341-6-21cnbao@gmail.com>
 <c9702789-5772-4750-a609-e44a5bbd8468@arm.com>
 <CANzGp4+p3xSo9uX2i7K2bSZ3VKEQQChAVzdmBD3O2qXq_cE2yA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANzGp4+p3xSo9uX2i7K2bSZ3VKEQQChAVzdmBD3O2qXq_cE2yA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 08:56:17PM GMT, Chuanhua Han wrote:
[...]
> >
> > 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.
> For 2M THP, IO overhead may not necessarily be large? :)
> 1.If 2M THP are continuously stored in the swap device, the IO
> overhead may not be very large (such as submitting bio with one
> bio_vec at a time).
> 2.If the process really needs this 2M data, one page-fault may perform
> much better than multiple.
> 3.For swap devices like zram,using 2M THP might also improve
> decompression efficiency.
>

Sorry for late response, do we have any performance data backing the
above claims particularly for zswap/swap-on-zram cases?