Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] mm: swap: Allow storage of all mTHP orders

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 08.04.24 11:24, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 07/04/2024 07:02, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 03.04.24 13:40, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>> Multi-size THP enables performance improvements by allocating large,
>>>> pte-mapped folios for anonymous memory. However I've observed that on an
>>>> arm64 system running a parallel workload (e.g. kernel compilation)
>>>> across many cores, under high memory pressure, the speed regresses. This
>>>> is due to bottlenecking on the increased number of TLBIs added due to
>>>> all the extra folio splitting when the large folios are swapped out.
>>>> Therefore, solve this regression by adding support for swapping out
>>>> mTHP
>>>> without needing to split the folio, just like is already done for
>>>> PMD-sized THP. This change only applies when CONFIG_THP_SWAP is enabled,
>>>> and when the swap backing store is a non-rotating block device. These
>>>> are the same constraints as for the existing PMD-sized THP swap-out
>>>> support.
>>>> Note that no attempt is made to swap-in (m)THP here - this is still
>>>> done
>>>> page-by-page, like for PMD-sized THP. But swapping-out mTHP is a
>>>> prerequisite for swapping-in mTHP.
>>>> The main change here is to improve the swap entry allocator so that
>>>> it
>>>> can allocate any power-of-2 number of contiguous entries between [1, (1
>>>> << PMD_ORDER)]. This is done by allocating a cluster for each distinct
>>>> order and allocating sequentially from it until the cluster is full.
>>>> This ensures that we don't need to search the map and we get no
>>>> fragmentation due to alignment padding for different orders in the
>>>> cluster. If there is no current cluster for a given order, we attempt to
>>>> allocate a free cluster from the list. If there are no free clusters, we
>>>> fail the allocation and the caller can fall back to splitting the folio
>>>> and allocates individual entries (as per existing PMD-sized THP
>>>> fallback).
>>>> The per-order current clusters are maintained per-cpu using the
>>>> existing
>>>> infrastructure. This is done to avoid interleving pages from different
>>>> tasks, which would prevent IO being batched. This is already done for
>>>> the order-0 allocations so we follow the same pattern.
>>>> As is done for order-0 per-cpu clusters, the scanner now can steal
>>>> order-0 entries from any per-cpu-per-order reserved cluster. This
>>>> ensures that when the swap file is getting full, space doesn't get tied
>>>> up in the per-cpu reserves.
>>>> This change only modifies swap to be able to accept any order
>>>> mTHP. It
>>>> doesn't change the callers to elide doing the actual split. That will be
>>>> done in separate changes.
>>>> Reviewed-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    include/linux/swap.h |  10 ++-
>>>>    mm/swap_slots.c      |   6 +-
>>>>    mm/swapfile.c        | 175 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>>>>    3 files changed, 109 insertions(+), 82 deletions(-)
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
>>>> index 5e1e4f5bf0cb..11c53692f65f 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/swap.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/swap.h
>>>> @@ -268,13 +268,19 @@ struct swap_cluster_info {
>>>>     */
>>>>    #define SWAP_NEXT_INVALID	0
>>>>    +#ifdef CONFIG_THP_SWAP
>>>> +#define SWAP_NR_ORDERS		(PMD_ORDER + 1)
>>>> +#else
>>>> +#define SWAP_NR_ORDERS		1
>>>> +#endif
>>>> +
>>>>    /*
>>>>     * We assign a cluster to each CPU, so each CPU can allocate swap entry from
>>>>     * its own cluster and swapout sequentially. The purpose is to optimize swapout
>>>>     * throughput.
>>>>     */
>>>>    struct percpu_cluster {
>>>> -	unsigned int next; /* Likely next allocation offset */
>>>> +	unsigned int next[SWAP_NR_ORDERS]; /* Likely next allocation offset */
>>>>    };
>>>>      struct swap_cluster_list {
>>>> @@ -471,7 +477,7 @@ swp_entry_t folio_alloc_swap(struct folio *folio);
>>>>    bool folio_free_swap(struct folio *folio);
>>>>    void put_swap_folio(struct folio *folio, swp_entry_t entry);
>>>>    extern swp_entry_t get_swap_page_of_type(int);
>>>> -extern int get_swap_pages(int n, swp_entry_t swp_entries[], int entry_size);
>>>> +extern int get_swap_pages(int n, swp_entry_t swp_entries[], int order);
>>>>    extern int add_swap_count_continuation(swp_entry_t, gfp_t);
>>>>    extern void swap_shmem_alloc(swp_entry_t);
>>>>    extern int swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t);
>>>> diff --git a/mm/swap_slots.c b/mm/swap_slots.c
>>>> index 53abeaf1371d..13ab3b771409 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/swap_slots.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/swap_slots.c
>>>> @@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ static int refill_swap_slots_cache(struct swap_slots_cache *cache)
>>>>    	cache->cur = 0;
>>>>    	if (swap_slot_cache_active)
>>>>    		cache->nr = get_swap_pages(SWAP_SLOTS_CACHE_SIZE,
>>>> -					   cache->slots, 1);
>>>> +					   cache->slots, 0);
>>>>      	return cache->nr;
>>>>    }
>>>> @@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ swp_entry_t folio_alloc_swap(struct folio *folio)
>>>>      	if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
>>>>    		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_THP_SWAP))
>>>> -			get_swap_pages(1, &entry, folio_nr_pages(folio));
>>>> +			get_swap_pages(1, &entry, folio_order(folio));
>>>
>>> The only comment I have is that this nr_pages -> order conversion adds
>>> a bit of noise to this patch.
>>>
>>> AFAIKS, it's primarily only required for "cluster->next[order]",
>>> everything else doesn't really require the order.
>>>
>>> I'd just have split that out into a separate patch, or simply
>>> converted nr_pages -> order where required.
>>>
>>> Nothing jumped at me, but I'm not an expert on that code, so I'm
>>> mostly trusting the others ;)
>>
>> The nr_pages -> order conversion replaces ilog2(nr_pages) with
>> (1<<order).  IIUC, "<<" is a little faster than "ilog2()".  And, we
>> don't need to worry about whether nr_pages is a power of 2.  Do you
>> think that this makes sense?
> 
> I think that David's point was that I should just split out that change to its
> own patch to aid readability? I'm happy to do that if no one objects.

Yes. Or avoiding it and not caring about a ilog vs. 1<<order 
micro-optimization ;)

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb