Hi, Kairui, Kairui Song <ryncsn@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > From: Kairui Song <kasong@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Currently we use one swap_address_space for every 64M chunk to reduce lock > contention, this is like having a set of smaller swap files inside one > big swap file. But when doing swap cache look up or insert, we are > still using the offset of the whole large swap file. This is OK for > correctness, as the offset (key) is unique. > > But Xarray is specially optimized for small indexes, it creates the > redix tree levels lazily to be just enough to fit the largest key > stored in one Xarray. So we are wasting tree nodes unnecessarily. > > For 64M chunk it should only take at most 3 level to contain everything. > But we are using the offset from the whole swap file, so the offset (key) > value will be way beyond 64M, and so will the tree level. > > Optimize this by reduce the swap cache search space into 64M scope. In general, I think that it makes sense to reduce the depth of the xarray. One concern is that IIUC we make swap cache behaves like file cache if possible. And your change makes swap cache and file cache diverge more. Is it possible for us to keep them similar? For example, Is it possible to return the offset inside 64M range in __page_file_index() (maybe rename it)? Is it possible to add "start_offset" support in xarray, so "index" will subtract "start_offset" before looking up / inserting? Is it possible to use multiple range locks to protect one xarray to improve the lock scalability? This is why we have multiple "struct address_space" for one swap device. And, we may have same lock contention issue for large files too. I haven't look at the code in details. So, my idea may not make sense at all. If so, sorry about that. Hi, Matthew, Can you teach me on this too? -- Best Regards, Huang, Ying
