Hi, Rik,
Thanks for comments!
Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, 2016-08-25 at 12:27 -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> File pages use a set of radix tags (DIRTY, TOWRITE, WRITEBACK, etc.)
>> to
>> accelerate finding the pages with a specific tag in the radix tree
>> during inode writeback. But for anonymous pages in the swap cache,
>> there is no inode writeback. So there is no need to find the
>> pages with some writeback tags in the radix tree. It is not
>> necessary
>> to touch radix tree writeback tags for pages in the swap cache.
>>
>> With this patch, the swap out bandwidth improved 22.3% (from ~1.2GB/s
>> to
>> ~ 1.48GBps) in the vm-scalability swap-w-seq test case with 8
>> processes.
>> The test is done on a Xeon E5 v3 system. The swap device used is a
>> RAM
>> simulated PMEM (persistent memory) device. The improvement comes
>> from
>> the reduced contention on the swap cache radix tree lock. To test
>> sequential swapping out, the test case uses 8 processes, which
>> sequentially allocate and write to the anonymous pages until RAM and
>> part of the swap device is used up.
>>
>> Details of comparison is as follow,
>>
>> base base+patch
>> ---------------- --------------------------
>> %stddev %change %stddev
>> \ | \
>> 1207402 ± 7% +22.3% 1476578 ± 6% vmstat.swap.so
>> 2506952 ± 2% +28.1% 3212076 ± 7% vm-
>> scalability.throughput
>> 10.86 ± 12% -23.4% 8.31 ± 16% perf-profile.cycles-
>> pp._raw_spin_lock_irq.__add_to_swap_cache.add_to_swap_cache.add_to_sw
>> ap.shrink_page_list
>> 10.82 ± 13% -33.1% 7.24 ± 14% perf-profile.cycles-
>> pp._raw_spin_lock_irqsave.__remove_mapping.shrink_page_list.shrink_in
>> active_list.shrink_zone_memcg
>> 10.36 ± 11% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% perf-profile.cycles-
>> pp._raw_spin_lock_irqsave.__test_set_page_writeback.bdev_write_page._
>> _swap_writepage.swap_writepage
>> 10.52 ± 12% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% perf-profile.cycles-
>> pp._raw_spin_lock_irqsave.test_clear_page_writeback.end_page_writebac
>> k.page_endio.pmem_rw_page
>>
>> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> mm/page-writeback.c | 6 ++++--
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
>> index 82e7252..599d2f9 100644
>> --- a/mm/page-writeback.c
>> +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
>> @@ -2728,7 +2728,8 @@ int test_clear_page_writeback(struct page
>> *page)
>> int ret;
>>
>> lock_page_memcg(page);
>> - if (mapping) {
>> + /* Pages in swap cache don't use writeback tags */
>> + if (mapping && !PageSwapCache(page)) {
>
> I wonder if that should be a mapping_uses_tags(mapping)
> macro or similar, and a per-mapping flag?
>
> I suspect there will be another case coming up soon
> where we have a page cache radix tree, but no need
> for dirty/writeback/... tags.
>
> That use case would be DAX filesystems, where we do
> use a struct page, but that struct page points at
> persistent storage, and the tags are not necessary.
Asked Dan and Ross for DAX usage of writeback tags. The DAX uses these
tags to flush the cache, etc.
>From Dan:
"
DAX uses them to track PMEM ranges that have taken a write fault so
that we can flush/write-back those dirty ranges at fsync()/msync()
time.
"
But I still think that it may be a good idea to use some function or
flags for this. Because it is more flexible and readable.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>