2022-04-29 10:48:25

by NeilBrown

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] MM: handle THP in swap_*page_fs()

Pages passed to swap_readpage()/swap_writepage() are not necessarily all
the same size - there may be transparent-huge-pages involves.

The BIO paths of swap_*page() handle this correctly, but the SWP_FS_OPS
path does not.

So we need to use thp_size() to find the size, not just assume
PAGE_SIZE, and we need to track the total length of the request, not
just assume it is "page * PAGE_SIZE".

Reported-by: Miaohe Lin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <[email protected]>
---
mm/page_io.c | 23 +++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/page_io.c b/mm/page_io.c
index c132511f521c..d636a3531cad 100644
--- a/mm/page_io.c
+++ b/mm/page_io.c
@@ -239,6 +239,7 @@ struct swap_iocb {
struct kiocb iocb;
struct bio_vec bvec[SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX];
int pages;
+ int len;
};
static mempool_t *sio_pool;

@@ -261,7 +262,7 @@ static void sio_write_complete(struct kiocb *iocb, long ret)
struct page *page = sio->bvec[0].bv_page;
int p;

- if (ret != PAGE_SIZE * sio->pages) {
+ if (ret != sio->len) {
/*
* In the case of swap-over-nfs, this can be a
* temporary failure if the system has limited
@@ -301,7 +302,7 @@ static int swap_writepage_fs(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc)
sio = *wbc->swap_plug;
if (sio) {
if (sio->iocb.ki_filp != swap_file ||
- sio->iocb.ki_pos + sio->pages * PAGE_SIZE != pos) {
+ sio->iocb.ki_pos + sio->len != pos) {
swap_write_unplug(sio);
sio = NULL;
}
@@ -312,10 +313,12 @@ static int swap_writepage_fs(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc)
sio->iocb.ki_complete = sio_write_complete;
sio->iocb.ki_pos = pos;
sio->pages = 0;
+ sio->len = 0;
}
sio->bvec[sio->pages].bv_page = page;
- sio->bvec[sio->pages].bv_len = PAGE_SIZE;
+ sio->bvec[sio->pages].bv_len = thp_size(page);
sio->bvec[sio->pages].bv_offset = 0;
+ sio->len += thp_size(page);
sio->pages += 1;
if (sio->pages == ARRAY_SIZE(sio->bvec) || !wbc->swap_plug) {
swap_write_unplug(sio);
@@ -371,8 +374,7 @@ void swap_write_unplug(struct swap_iocb *sio)
struct address_space *mapping = sio->iocb.ki_filp->f_mapping;
int ret;

- iov_iter_bvec(&from, WRITE, sio->bvec, sio->pages,
- PAGE_SIZE * sio->pages);
+ iov_iter_bvec(&from, WRITE, sio->bvec, sio->pages, sio->len);
ret = mapping->a_ops->swap_rw(&sio->iocb, &from);
if (ret != -EIOCBQUEUED)
sio_write_complete(&sio->iocb, ret);
@@ -383,7 +385,7 @@ static void sio_read_complete(struct kiocb *iocb, long ret)
struct swap_iocb *sio = container_of(iocb, struct swap_iocb, iocb);
int p;

- if (ret == PAGE_SIZE * sio->pages) {
+ if (ret == sio->len) {
for (p = 0; p < sio->pages; p++) {
struct page *page = sio->bvec[p].bv_page;

@@ -415,7 +417,7 @@ static void swap_readpage_fs(struct page *page,
sio = *plug;
if (sio) {
if (sio->iocb.ki_filp != sis->swap_file ||
- sio->iocb.ki_pos + sio->pages * PAGE_SIZE != pos) {
+ sio->iocb.ki_pos + sio->len != pos) {
swap_read_unplug(sio);
sio = NULL;
}
@@ -426,10 +428,12 @@ static void swap_readpage_fs(struct page *page,
sio->iocb.ki_pos = pos;
sio->iocb.ki_complete = sio_read_complete;
sio->pages = 0;
+ sio->len = 0;
}
sio->bvec[sio->pages].bv_page = page;
- sio->bvec[sio->pages].bv_len = PAGE_SIZE;
+ sio->bvec[sio->pages].bv_len = thp_size(page);
sio->bvec[sio->pages].bv_offset = 0;
+ sio->len += thp_size(page);
sio->pages += 1;
if (sio->pages == ARRAY_SIZE(sio->bvec) || !plug) {
swap_read_unplug(sio);
@@ -521,8 +525,7 @@ void __swap_read_unplug(struct swap_iocb *sio)
struct address_space *mapping = sio->iocb.ki_filp->f_mapping;
int ret;

- iov_iter_bvec(&from, READ, sio->bvec, sio->pages,
- PAGE_SIZE * sio->pages);
+ iov_iter_bvec(&from, READ, sio->bvec, sio->pages, sio->len);
ret = mapping->a_ops->swap_rw(&sio->iocb, &from);
if (ret != -EIOCBQUEUED)
sio_read_complete(&sio->iocb, ret);



2022-04-29 14:06:48

by Andrew Morton

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] MM: handle THP in swap_*page_fs()

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 10:43:34 +1000 NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:

> Pages passed to swap_readpage()/swap_writepage() are not necessarily all
> the same size - there may be transparent-huge-pages involves.
>
> The BIO paths of swap_*page() handle this correctly, but the SWP_FS_OPS
> path does not.
>
> So we need to use thp_size() to find the size, not just assume
> PAGE_SIZE, and we need to track the total length of the request, not
> just assume it is "page * PAGE_SIZE".

Cool. I added this in the series after
mm-submit-multipage-write-for-swp_fs_ops-swap-space.patch. I could
later squash it into that patch if you think that's more logical.

2022-05-02 21:02:12

by Yang Shi

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] MM: handle THP in swap_*page_fs()

On Sun, May 1, 2022 at 9:23 PM NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, Yang Shi wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 5:44 PM NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Pages passed to swap_readpage()/swap_writepage() are not necessarily all
> > > the same size - there may be transparent-huge-pages involves.
> > >
> > > The BIO paths of swap_*page() handle this correctly, but the SWP_FS_OPS
> > > path does not.
> > >
> > > So we need to use thp_size() to find the size, not just assume
> > > PAGE_SIZE, and we need to track the total length of the request, not
> > > just assume it is "page * PAGE_SIZE".
> >
> > Swap-over-nfs doesn't support THP swap IIUC. So SWP_FS_OPS should not
> > see THP at all. But I agree to remove the assumption about page size
> > in this path.
>
> Can you help me understand this please. How would the swap code know
> that swap-over-NFS doesn't support THP swap? There is no reason that
> NFS wouldn't be able to handle 2MB writes. Even 1GB should work though
> NFS would have to split into several smaller WRITE requests.

AFAICT, THP swap is only supported on non-rotate block devices, for
example, SSD, PMEM, etc. IIRC, the swap device has to support the
cluster in order to swap THP. The cluster is only supported by
non-rotate block devices.

Looped Ying in, who is the author of THP swap.

>
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Miaohe Lin <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > mm/page_io.c | 23 +++++++++++++----------
> > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/page_io.c b/mm/page_io.c
> > > index c132511f521c..d636a3531cad 100644
> > > --- a/mm/page_io.c
> > > +++ b/mm/page_io.c
> > > @@ -239,6 +239,7 @@ struct swap_iocb {
> > > struct kiocb iocb;
> > > struct bio_vec bvec[SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX];
> > > int pages;
> > > + int len;
> > > };
> > > static mempool_t *sio_pool;
> > >
> > > @@ -261,7 +262,7 @@ static void sio_write_complete(struct kiocb *iocb, long ret)
> > > struct page *page = sio->bvec[0].bv_page;
> > > int p;
> > >
> > > - if (ret != PAGE_SIZE * sio->pages) {
> > > + if (ret != sio->len) {
> > > /*
> > > * In the case of swap-over-nfs, this can be a
> > > * temporary failure if the system has limited
> > > @@ -301,7 +302,7 @@ static int swap_writepage_fs(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> > > sio = *wbc->swap_plug;
> > > if (sio) {
> > > if (sio->iocb.ki_filp != swap_file ||
> > > - sio->iocb.ki_pos + sio->pages * PAGE_SIZE != pos) {
> > > + sio->iocb.ki_pos + sio->len != pos) {
> > > swap_write_unplug(sio);
> > > sio = NULL;
> > > }
> > > @@ -312,10 +313,12 @@ static int swap_writepage_fs(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> > > sio->iocb.ki_complete = sio_write_complete;
> > > sio->iocb.ki_pos = pos;
> > > sio->pages = 0;
> > > + sio->len = 0;
> > > }
> > > sio->bvec[sio->pages].bv_page = page;
> > > - sio->bvec[sio->pages].bv_len = PAGE_SIZE;
> > > + sio->bvec[sio->pages].bv_len = thp_size(page);
> > > sio->bvec[sio->pages].bv_offset = 0;
> > > + sio->len += thp_size(page);
> > > sio->pages += 1;
> > > if (sio->pages == ARRAY_SIZE(sio->bvec) || !wbc->swap_plug) {
> > > swap_write_unplug(sio);
> > > @@ -371,8 +374,7 @@ void swap_write_unplug(struct swap_iocb *sio)
> > > struct address_space *mapping = sio->iocb.ki_filp->f_mapping;
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > - iov_iter_bvec(&from, WRITE, sio->bvec, sio->pages,
> > > - PAGE_SIZE * sio->pages);
> > > + iov_iter_bvec(&from, WRITE, sio->bvec, sio->pages, sio->len);
> > > ret = mapping->a_ops->swap_rw(&sio->iocb, &from);
> > > if (ret != -EIOCBQUEUED)
> > > sio_write_complete(&sio->iocb, ret);
> > > @@ -383,7 +385,7 @@ static void sio_read_complete(struct kiocb *iocb, long ret)
> > > struct swap_iocb *sio = container_of(iocb, struct swap_iocb, iocb);
> > > int p;
> > >
> > > - if (ret == PAGE_SIZE * sio->pages) {
> > > + if (ret == sio->len) {
> > > for (p = 0; p < sio->pages; p++) {
> > > struct page *page = sio->bvec[p].bv_page;
> > >
> > > @@ -415,7 +417,7 @@ static void swap_readpage_fs(struct page *page,
> > > sio = *plug;
> > > if (sio) {
> > > if (sio->iocb.ki_filp != sis->swap_file ||
> > > - sio->iocb.ki_pos + sio->pages * PAGE_SIZE != pos) {
> > > + sio->iocb.ki_pos + sio->len != pos) {
> > > swap_read_unplug(sio);
> > > sio = NULL;
> > > }
> > > @@ -426,10 +428,12 @@ static void swap_readpage_fs(struct page *page,
> > > sio->iocb.ki_pos = pos;
> > > sio->iocb.ki_complete = sio_read_complete;
> > > sio->pages = 0;
> > > + sio->len = 0;
> > > }
> > > sio->bvec[sio->pages].bv_page = page;
> > > - sio->bvec[sio->pages].bv_len = PAGE_SIZE;
> > > + sio->bvec[sio->pages].bv_len = thp_size(page);
> > > sio->bvec[sio->pages].bv_offset = 0;
> > > + sio->len += thp_size(page);
> > > sio->pages += 1;
> > > if (sio->pages == ARRAY_SIZE(sio->bvec) || !plug) {
> > > swap_read_unplug(sio);
> > > @@ -521,8 +525,7 @@ void __swap_read_unplug(struct swap_iocb *sio)
> > > struct address_space *mapping = sio->iocb.ki_filp->f_mapping;
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > - iov_iter_bvec(&from, READ, sio->bvec, sio->pages,
> > > - PAGE_SIZE * sio->pages);
> > > + iov_iter_bvec(&from, READ, sio->bvec, sio->pages, sio->len);
> > > ret = mapping->a_ops->swap_rw(&sio->iocb, &from);
> > > if (ret != -EIOCBQUEUED)
> > > sio_read_complete(&sio->iocb, ret);
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >

2022-05-05 01:12:16

by NeilBrown

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] MM: handle THP in swap_*page_fs()

On Tue, 03 May 2022, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Sun, May 1, 2022 at 9:23 PM NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 5:44 PM NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Pages passed to swap_readpage()/swap_writepage() are not necessarily all
> > > > the same size - there may be transparent-huge-pages involves.
> > > >
> > > > The BIO paths of swap_*page() handle this correctly, but the SWP_FS_OPS
> > > > path does not.
> > > >
> > > > So we need to use thp_size() to find the size, not just assume
> > > > PAGE_SIZE, and we need to track the total length of the request, not
> > > > just assume it is "page * PAGE_SIZE".
> > >
> > > Swap-over-nfs doesn't support THP swap IIUC. So SWP_FS_OPS should not
> > > see THP at all. But I agree to remove the assumption about page size
> > > in this path.
> >
> > Can you help me understand this please. How would the swap code know
> > that swap-over-NFS doesn't support THP swap? There is no reason that
> > NFS wouldn't be able to handle 2MB writes. Even 1GB should work though
> > NFS would have to split into several smaller WRITE requests.
>
> AFAICT, THP swap is only supported on non-rotate block devices, for
> example, SSD, PMEM, etc. IIRC, the swap device has to support the
> cluster in order to swap THP. The cluster is only supported by
> non-rotate block devices.
>
> Looped Ying in, who is the author of THP swap.

I hunted around the code and found that THP swap only happens if a
'cluster_info' is allocated, and that only happens if
if (p->bdev && bdev_nonrot(p->bdev)) {
in the swapon syscall.

I guess "nonrot" is being use as a synonym for "low latency"...
So even if NFS was low-latency it couldn't benefit from THP swap.

So as you say it is not currently possible for THP pages to be send to
NFS for swapout. It makes sense to prepare for it though I think - if
only so that the code is more consistent and less confusing.

Thanks,
NeilBrown

2022-05-06 16:07:00

by Huang Ying

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] MM: handle THP in swap_*page_fs()

On Thu, 2022-05-05 at 09:41 +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Tue, 03 May 2022, Yang Shi wrote:
> > On Sun, May 1, 2022 at 9:23 PM NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 5:44 PM NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Pages passed to swap_readpage()/swap_writepage() are not necessarily all
> > > > > the same size - there may be transparent-huge-pages involves.
> > > > >
> > > > > The BIO paths of swap_*page() handle this correctly, but the SWP_FS_OPS
> > > > > path does not.
> > > > >
> > > > > So we need to use thp_size() to find the size, not just assume
> > > > > PAGE_SIZE, and we need to track the total length of the request, not
> > > > > just assume it is "page * PAGE_SIZE".
> > > >
> > > > Swap-over-nfs doesn't support THP swap IIUC. So SWP_FS_OPS should not
> > > > see THP at all. But I agree to remove the assumption about page size
> > > > in this path.
> > >
> > > Can you help me understand this please. How would the swap code know
> > > that swap-over-NFS doesn't support THP swap? There is no reason that
> > > NFS wouldn't be able to handle 2MB writes. Even 1GB should work though
> > > NFS would have to split into several smaller WRITE requests.
> >
> > AFAICT, THP swap is only supported on non-rotate block devices, for
> > example, SSD, PMEM, etc. IIRC, the swap device has to support the
> > cluster in order to swap THP. The cluster is only supported by
> > non-rotate block devices.
> >
> > Looped Ying in, who is the author of THP swap.
>
> I hunted around the code and found that THP swap only happens if a
> 'cluster_info' is allocated, and that only happens if
> if (p->bdev && bdev_nonrot(p->bdev)) {
> in the swapon syscall.
>

And in get_swap_pages(), the cluster is only allocated for block
devices.

if (size == SWAPFILE_CLUSTER) {
if (si->flags & SWP_BLKDEV)
n_ret = swap_alloc_cluster(si, swp_entries);
} else
n_ret = scan_swap_map_slots(si, SWAP_HAS_CACHE,
n_goal, swp_entries);

We may remove this restriction in the future if someone can show the
benefit.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

> I guess "nonrot" is being use as a synonym for "low latency"...
> So even if NFS was low-latency it couldn't benefit from THP swap.
>
> So as you say it is not currently possible for THP pages to be send to
> NFS for swapout. It makes sense to prepare for it though I think - if
> only so that the code is more consistent and less confusing.
>
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown