Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: Introduce a test program to assess swap entry allocation for thp_swapout

["Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>]

Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 5:22 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 1:55 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
>> >> >
>> >> > Both Ryan and Chris have been utilizing the small test program to aid
>> >> > in debugging and identifying issues with swap entry allocation. While
>> >> > a real or intricate workload might be more suitable for assessing the
>> >> > correctness and effectiveness of the swap allocation policy, a small
>> >> > test program presents a simpler means of understanding the problem and
>> >> > initially verifying the improvements being made.
>> >> >
>> >> > Let's endeavor to integrate it into the self-test suite. Although it
>> >> > presently only accommodates 64KB and 4KB, I'm optimistic that we can
>> >> > expand its capabilities to support multiple sizes and simulate more
>> >> > complex systems in the future as required.
>> >>
>> >> IIUC, this is a performance test program instead of functionality test
>> >> program.  Does it match the purpose of the kernel selftest?
>> >
>> > I have a differing perspective. I maintain that the functionality is
>> > not functioning
>> > as expected. Despite having all the necessary resources for allocation, failure
>> > persists, indicating a lack of functionality.
>>
>> Is there any user visual functionality issue?
>
> Definitely not. If a plane can't take off, taking a train and pretending
> there's no functionality issue isn't a solution.

I always think that performance optimization is great work.  However, it
is not functionality work.

> I have never assigned blame for any mistakes here. On the contrary,
> I have 100% appreciation for Ryan's work in at least initiating mTHP
> swapout w/o being split.
>
> It took countless experiments for humans to make airplanes commercially
> viable, but the person who created the first flying airplane remains the
> greatest. Similarly, Ryan's efforts, combined with your review of his patch,
> have enabled us to achieve a better goal here. Without your work, we can't
> get here at all.

Thanks!

> However, this is never a reason to refuse to acknowledge that this feature
> is not actually working.

It just works for some workloads, not for some others.

>>
>> >>
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
>> >> > ---
>> >> >  tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile           |   1 +
>> >> >  .../selftests/mm/thp_swap_allocator_test.c    | 192 ++++++++++++++++++
>> >> >  2 files changed, 193 insertions(+)
>> >> >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/mm/thp_swap_allocator_test.c
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile
>> >> > index e1aa09ddaa3d..64164ad66835 100644
>> >> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile
>> >> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile
>> >> > @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ TEST_GEN_FILES += mseal_test
>> >> >  TEST_GEN_FILES += seal_elf
>> >> >  TEST_GEN_FILES += on-fault-limit
>> >> >  TEST_GEN_FILES += pagemap_ioctl
>> >> > +TEST_GEN_FILES += thp_swap_allocator_test
>> >> >  TEST_GEN_FILES += thuge-gen
>> >> >  TEST_GEN_FILES += transhuge-stress
>> >> >  TEST_GEN_FILES += uffd-stress
>> >> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/thp_swap_allocator_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/thp_swap_allocator_test.c
>> >> > new file mode 100644
>> >> > index 000000000000..4443a906d0f8
>> >> > --- /dev/null
>> >> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/thp_swap_allocator_test.c
>> >> > @@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
>> >> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
>> >> > +/*
>> >> > + * thp_swap_allocator_test
>> >> > + *
>> >> > + * The purpose of this test program is helping check if THP swpout
>> >> > + * can correctly get swap slots to swap out as a whole instead of
>> >> > + * being split. It randomly releases swap entries through madvise
>> >> > + * DONTNEED and do swapout on two memory areas: a memory area for
>> >> > + * 64KB THP and the other area for small folios. The second memory
>> >> > + * can be enabled by "-s".
>> >> > + * Before running the program, we need to setup a zRAM or similar
>> >> > + * swap device by:
>> >> > + *  echo lzo > /sys/block/zram0/comp_algorithm
>> >> > + *  echo 64M > /sys/block/zram0/disksize
>> >> > + *  echo never > /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/hugepages-2048kB/enabled
>> >> > + *  echo always > /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/hugepages-64kB/enabled
>> >> > + *  mkswap /dev/zram0
>> >> > + *  swapon /dev/zram0
>> >> > + * The expected result should be 0% anon swpout fallback ratio w/ or
>> >> > + * w/o "-s".
>> >> > + *
>> >> > + * Author(s): Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
>> >> > + */
>> >> > +
>> >> > +#define _GNU_SOURCE
>> >> > +#include <stdio.h>
>> >> > +#include <stdlib.h>
>> >> > +#include <unistd.h>
>> >> > +#include <string.h>
>> >> > +#include <sys/mman.h>
>> >> > +#include <errno.h>
>> >> > +#include <time.h>
>> >> > +
>> >> > +#define MEMSIZE_MTHP (60 * 1024 * 1024)
>> >> > +#define MEMSIZE_SMALLFOLIO (1 * 1024 * 1024)
>> >> > +#define ALIGNMENT_MTHP (64 * 1024)
>> >> > +#define ALIGNMENT_SMALLFOLIO (4 * 1024)
>> >> > +#define TOTAL_DONTNEED_MTHP (16 * 1024 * 1024)
>> >> > +#define TOTAL_DONTNEED_SMALLFOLIO (768 * 1024)
>> >> > +#define MTHP_FOLIO_SIZE (64 * 1024)
>> >> > +
>> >> > +#define SWPOUT_PATH \
>> >> > +     "/sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/hugepages-64kB/stats/swpout"
>> >> > +#define SWPOUT_FALLBACK_PATH \
>> >> > +     "/sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/hugepages-64kB/stats/swpout_fallback"
>> >> > +
>> >> > +static void *aligned_alloc_mem(size_t size, size_t alignment)
>> >> > +{
>> >> > +     void *mem = NULL;
>> >> > +
>> >> > +     if (posix_memalign(&mem, alignment, size) != 0) {
>> >> > +             perror("posix_memalign");
>> >> > +             return NULL;
>> >> > +     }
>> >> > +     return mem;
>> >> > +}
>> >> > +
>> >> > +static void random_madvise_dontneed(void *mem, size_t mem_size,
>> >> > +             size_t align_size, size_t total_dontneed_size)
>> >> > +{
>> >> > +     size_t num_pages = total_dontneed_size / align_size;
>> >> > +     size_t i;
>> >> > +     size_t offset;
>> >> > +     void *addr;
>> >> > +
>> >> > +     for (i = 0; i < num_pages; ++i) {
>> >> > +             offset = (rand() % (mem_size / align_size)) * align_size;
>> >> > +             addr = (char *)mem + offset;
>> >> > +             if (madvise(addr, align_size, MADV_DONTNEED) != 0)
>> >> > +                     perror("madvise dontneed");
>> >>
>> >> IIUC, this simulates align_size (generally 64KB) swap-in.  That is, it
>> >> simulate the effect of large size swap-in when it's not available in
>> >> kernel.  If we have large size swap-in in kernel in the future, this
>> >> becomes unnecessary.
>> >>
>> >> Additionally, we have not reached the consensus that we should always
>> >> swap-in with swapped-out size.  So, I suspect that this test may not
>> >> reflect real situation in the future.  Although it doesn't reflect
>> >> current situation too.
>> >
>> > Disagree again. releasing the whole mTHP swaps is the best case. Even in
>> > the best-case scenario, if we fail, it raises concerns for handling potentially
>> > more challenging situations.
>>
>> Repeating sequential anonymous pages writing is the best case.
>
> I define the best case as the scenario with the least chance of creating
> fragments within swapfiles for mTHP to swap out. There is no real
> difference whether this is done through swapin or madv_dontneed.

IMO, swapin is much more important than madv_dontneed.  Because most
users use swapin automatically, but few use madv_dontneed by hand.  So,
I think swapin/swapout test is much more important than madv_dontneed.
I don't like this test case because madv_dontneed isn't typical or
basic.

>>
>> > I don't find it hard to incorporate additional features into this test
>> > program to simulate more intricate scenarios.
>>
>> IMHO, we don't really need this special purpose test.  We can have some
>> more general basic tests, for example, sequential anonymous pages
>> writing/reading, random anonymous pages writing/reading, and combination
>> of them.
>
> I understand that not all things will be loved by all people. However, before
> I sent this patch, Chris mentioned that it has been very helpful for him and
> strongly suggested that I contribute it to the self-test suite.
>
> By the way, adding sequential and random anonymous pages for
> read/write operations is definitely in my plan. The absence of this feature
> isn't a convincing reason to disregard it.
>

[snip]

--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying