Re: [RFC PATCH v3 5/5] mm: support large folios swapin as a whole

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

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

> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:17 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 9:43 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > From: Chuanhua Han <hanchuanhua@oppo.com>
>> >> >
>> >> > On an embedded system like Android, more than half of anon memory is
>> >> > actually in swap devices such as zRAM. For example, while an app is
>> >> > switched to background, its most memory might be swapped-out.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now we have mTHP features, unfortunately, if we don't support large folios
>> >> > swap-in, once those large folios are swapped-out, we immediately lose the
>> >> > performance gain we can get through large folios and hardware optimization
>> >> > such as CONT-PTE.
>> >> >
>> >> > This patch brings up mTHP swap-in support. Right now, we limit mTHP swap-in
>> >> > to those contiguous swaps which were likely swapped out from mTHP as a
>> >> > whole.
>> >> >
>> >> > Meanwhile, the current implementation only covers the SWAP_SYCHRONOUS
>> >> > case. It doesn't support swapin_readahead as large folios yet since this
>> >> > kind of shared memory is much less than memory mapped by single process.
>> >>
>> >> In contrast, I still think that it's better to start with normal swap-in
>> >> path, then expand to SWAP_SYCHRONOUS case.
>> >
>> > I'd rather try the reverse direction as non-sync anon memory is only around
>> > 3% in a phone as my observation.
>>
>> Phone is not the only platform that Linux is running on.
>
> I suppose it's generally true that forked shared anonymous pages only
> constitute a
> small portion of all anonymous pages. The majority of anonymous pages are within
> a single process.

Yes.  But IIUC, SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO is quite limited, they are set only
for memory backed swap devices.

> I agree phones are not the only platform. But Rome wasn't built in a
> day. I can only get
> started on a hardware which I can easily reach and have enough hardware/test
> resources on it. So we may take the first step which can be applied on
> a real product
> and improve its performance, and step by step, we broaden it and make it
> widely useful to various areas  in which I can't reach :-)

We must guarantee the normal swap path runs correctly and has no
performance regression when developing SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO optimization.
So we have to put some effort on the normal path test anyway.

> so probably we can have a sysfs "enable" entry with default "n" or
> have a maximum
> swap-in order as Ryan's suggestion [1] at the beginning,
>
> "
> 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.
> "
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> In normal swap-in path, we can take advantage of swap readahead
>> >> information to determine the swapped-in large folio order.  That is, if
>> >> the return value of swapin_nr_pages() > 1, then we can try to allocate
>> >> and swapin a large folio.
>> >
>> > I am not quite sure we still need to depend on this. in do_anon_page,
>> > we have broken the assumption and allocated a large folio directly.
>>
>> I don't think that we have a sophisticated policy to allocate large
>> folio.  Large folio could waste memory for some workloads, so I think
>> that it's a good idea to allocate large folio always.
>
> i agree, but we still have the below check just like do_anon_page() has it,
>
>         orders = thp_vma_allowable_orders(vma, vma->vm_flags, false, true, true,
>                                           BIT(PMD_ORDER) - 1);
>         orders = thp_vma_suitable_orders(vma, vmf->address, orders);
>
> in do_anon_page, we don't worry about the waste so much, the same
> logic also applies to do_swap_page().

As I said, "readahead" may help us from application/user specific
configuration in most cases.  It can be a starting point of "using mTHP
automatically when it helps and not cause many issues".

>>
>> Readahead gives us an opportunity to play with the policy.
>
> I feel somehow the rules of the game have changed with an upper
> limit for swap-in size. for example, if the upper limit is 4 order,
> it limits folio size to 64KiB which is still a proper size for ARM64
> whose base page can be 64KiB.
>
> on the other hand, while swapping out large folios, we will always
> compress them as a whole(zsmalloc/zram patch will come in a
> couple of days), if we choose to decompress a subpage instead of
> a large folio in do_swap_page(), we might need to decompress
> nr_pages times. for example,
>
> For large folios 16*4KiB, they are saved as a large object in zsmalloc(with
> the coming patch), if we swap in a small folio, we decompress the large
> object; next time, we will still need to decompress a large object. so
> it is more sensible to swap in a large folio if we find those
> swap entries are contiguous and were allocated by a large folio swap-out.

I understand that there are some special requirements for ZRAM.  But I
don't think it's a good idea to force the general code to fit the
requirements of a specific swap device too much.  This is one of the
reasons that I think that we should start with normal swap devices, then
try to optimize for some specific devices.

>>
>> > On the other hand, compressing/decompressing large folios as a
>> > whole rather than doing it one by one can save a large percent of
>> > CPUs and provide a much lower compression ratio.  With a hardware
>> > accelerator, this is even faster.
>>
>> I am not against to support large folio for compressing/decompressing.
>>
>> I just suggest to do that later, after we play with normal swap-in.
>> SWAP_SYCHRONOUS related swap-in code is an optimization based on normal
>> swap.  So, it seems natural to support large folio swap-in for normal
>> swap-in firstly.
>
> I feel like SWAP_SYCHRONOUS is a simpler case and even more "normal"
> than the swapcache path since it is the majority.

I don't think so.  Most PC and server systems uses !SWAP_SYCHRONOUS
swap devices.

> and on the other hand, a lot
> of modification is required for the swapcache path. in OPPO's code[1], we did
> bring-up both paths, but the swapcache path is much much more complicated
> than the SYNC path and hasn't really noticeable improvement.
>
> [1] https://github.com/OnePlusOSS/android_kernel_oneplus_sm8650/tree/oneplus/sm8650_u_14.0.0_oneplus12

That's great.  Please cleanup the code and post it to mailing list.  Why
doesn't it help?  IIUC, it can optimize TLB at least.

>>
>> > So I'd rather more aggressively get large folios swap-in involved
>> > than depending on readahead.
>>
>> We can take advantage of readahead algorithm in SWAP_SYCHRONOUS
>> optimization too.  The sub-pages that is not accessed by page fault can
>> be treated as readahead.  I think that is a better policy than
>> allocating large folio always.
>
> Considering the zsmalloc optimization, it would be a better choice to
> always allocate
> large folios if we find those swap entries are for a swapped-out large folio. as
> decompressing just once, we get all subpages.
> Some hardware accelerators are even able to decompress a large folio with
> multi-hardware threads, for example, 16 hardware threads can compress
> each subpage of a large folio at the same time, it is just as fast as
> decompressing
> one subpage.
>
> for platforms without the above optimizations, a proper upper limit
> will help them
> disable the large folios swap-in or decrease the impact. For example,
> if the upper
> limit is 0-order, we are just removing this patchset. if the upper
> limit is 2 orders, we
> are just like BASE_PAGE size is 16KiB.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> To do that, we need to track whether the sub-pages are accessed.  I
>> >> guess we need that information for large file folio readahead too.
>> >>
>> >> Hi, Matthew,
>> >>
>> >> Can you help us on tracking whether the sub-pages of a readahead large
>> >> folio has been accessed?
>> >>
>> >> > Right now, we are re-faulting large folios which are still in swapcache as a
>> >> > whole, this can effectively decrease extra loops and early-exitings which we
>> >> > have increased in arch_swap_restore() while supporting MTE restore for folios
>> >> > rather than page. On the other hand, it can also decrease do_swap_page as
>> >> > PTEs used to be set one by one even we hit a large folio in swapcache.
>> >> >
>> >>

--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying