Hi Huang,
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 02:49:01PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> To reduce the lock contention of swap_info_struct->lock when freeing
> swap entry. The freed swap entries will be collected in a per-CPU
> buffer firstly, and be really freed later in batch. During the batch
> freeing, if the consecutive swap entries in the per-CPU buffer belongs
> to same swap device, the swap_info_struct->lock needs to be
> acquired/released only once, so that the lock contention could be
> reduced greatly. But if there are multiple swap devices, it is
> possible that the lock may be unnecessarily released/acquired because
> the swap entries belong to the same swap device are non-consecutive in
> the per-CPU buffer.
>
> To solve the issue, the per-CPU buffer is sorted according to the swap
> device before freeing the swap entries. Test shows that the time
> spent by swapcache_free_entries() could be reduced after the patch.
>
> Test the patch via measuring the run time of swap_cache_free_entries()
> during the exit phase of the applications use much swap space. The
> results shows that the average run time of swap_cache_free_entries()
> reduced about 20% after applying the patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> v3:
>
> - Add some comments in code per Rik's suggestion.
>
> v2:
>
> - Avoid sort swap entries if there is only one swap device.
> ---
> mm/swapfile.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
> index 90054f3c2cdc..f23c56e9be39 100644
> --- a/mm/swapfile.c
> +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
> @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@
> #include <linux/swapfile.h>
> #include <linux/export.h>
> #include <linux/swap_slots.h>
> +#include <linux/sort.h>
>
> #include <asm/pgtable.h>
> #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
> @@ -1065,6 +1066,13 @@ void swapcache_free(swp_entry_t entry)
> }
> }
>
> +static int swp_entry_cmp(const void *ent1, const void *ent2)
> +{
> + const swp_entry_t *e1 = ent1, *e2 = ent2;
> +
> + return (long)(swp_type(*e1) - swp_type(*e2));
> +}
> +
> void swapcache_free_entries(swp_entry_t *entries, int n)
> {
> struct swap_info_struct *p, *prev;
> @@ -1075,6 +1083,10 @@ void swapcache_free_entries(swp_entry_t *entries, int n)
>
> prev = NULL;
> p = NULL;
> +
> + /* Sort swap entries by swap device, so each lock is only taken once. */
> + if (nr_swapfiles > 1)
> + sort(entries, n, sizeof(entries[0]), swp_entry_cmp, NULL);
Let's think on other cases.
There are two swaps and they are configured by priority so a swap's usage
would be zero unless other swap used up. In case of that, this sorting
is pointless.
As well, nr_swapfiles is never decreased so if we enable multiple
swaps and then disable until a swap is remained, this sorting is
pointelss, too.
How about lazy sorting approach? IOW, if we found prev != p and,
then we can sort it.
Thanks.
--
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>
