Re: [PATCH 0/2] RFC: zswap tree use xarray instead of RB tree

[Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 10:19 PM Chengming Zhou
<zhouchengming@bytedance.com> wrote:
>
> On 2024/1/19 12:59, Chris Li wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:35 PM Chengming Zhou
> > <zhouchengming@bytedance.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>                     mm-stable           zswap-split-tree    zswap-xarray
> >>>>> real                1m10.442s           1m4.157s            1m9.962s
> >>>>> user                17m48.232s          17m41.477s          17m45.887s
> >>>>> sys                 8m13.517s           5m2.226s            7m59.305s
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Looks like the contention of concurrency is still there, I haven't
> >>>>> look into the code yet, will review it later.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the quick test. Interesting to see the sys usage drop for
> >>> the xarray case even with the spin lock.
> >>> Not sure if the 13 second saving is statistically significant or not.
> >>>
> >>> We might need to have both xarray and split trees for the zswap. It is
> >>> likely removing the spin lock wouldn't be able to make up the 35%
> >>> difference. That is just my guess. There is only one way to find out.
> >>
> >> Yes, I totally agree with this! IMHO, concurrent zswap_store paths still
> >> have to contend for the xarray spinlock even though we would have converted
> >> the rb-tree to the xarray structure at last. So I think we should have both.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> BTW, do you have a script I can run to replicate your results?
> >
> > Hi Chengming,
> >
> > Thanks for your script.
> >
> >>
> >> ```
> >> #!/bin/bash
> >>
> >> testname="build-kernel-tmpfs"
> >> cgroup="/sys/fs/cgroup/$testname"
> >>
> >> tmpdir="/tmp/vm-scalability-tmp"
> >> workdir="$tmpdir/$testname"
> >>
> >> memory_max="$((2 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024))"
> >>
> >> linux_src="/root/zcm/linux-6.6.tar.xz"
> >> NR_TASK=32
> >>
> >> swapon ~/zcm/swapfile
> >
> > How big is your swapfile here?
>
> The swapfile is big enough here, I use a 50GB swapfile.

Thanks,

>
> >
> > It seems you have only one swapfile there. That can explain the contention.
> > Have you tried multiple swapfiles for the same test?
> > That should reduce the contention without using your patch.
> Do you mean to have many 64MB swapfiles to swapon at the same time?

64MB is too small. There are limits to MAX_SWAPFILES. It is less than
(32 - n) swap files.
If you want to use 50G swap space, you can have MAX_SWAPFILES, each
swapfile 50GB / MAX_SWAPFILES.

> Maybe it's feasible to test,

Of course it is testable, I am curious to see the test results.

> I'm not sure how swapout will choose.

It will rotate through the same priority swap files first.
swapfile.c: get_swap_pages().

> But in our usecase, we normally have only one swapfile.

Is there a good reason why you can't use more than one swapfile?
One swapfile will not take the full advantage of the existing code.
Even if you split the zswap trees within a swapfile. With only one
swapfile, you will still be having lock contention on "(struct
swap_info_struct).lock".
It is one lock per swapfile.
Using more than one swap file should get you better results.

Chris