Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 08:29:30PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: >> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > >> >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:14:43PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: >> >>> Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> >> >>> > Hi Huang, >> >>> > >> >>> > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 02:49:01PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: >> >>> >> From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> 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. >> >>> >> >>> Yes. That should be better. I just don't know whether the added >> >>> complexity is necessary, given the array is short and sort is fast. >> >> >> >> Huh? >> >> >> >> 1. swapon /dev/XXX1 >> >> 2. swapon /dev/XXX2 >> >> 3. swapoff /dev/XXX2 >> >> 4. use only one swap >> >> 5. then, always pointless sort. >> > >> > Yes. In this situation we will do unnecessary sorting. What I don't >> > know is whether the unnecessary sorting will hurt performance in real >> > life. I can do some measurement. >> >> I tested the patch with 1 swap device and 1 process to eat memory >> (remove the "if (nr_swapfiles > 1)" for test). I think this is the >> worse case because there is no lock contention. The memory freeing time >> increased from 1.94s to 2.12s (increase ~9.2%). So there is some >> overhead for some cases. I change the algorithm to something like >> below, >> >> void swapcache_free_entries(swp_entry_t *entries, int n) >> { >> struct swap_info_struct *p, *prev; >> int i; >> + swp_entry_t entry; >> + unsigned int prev_swp_type; >> >> if (n <= 0) >> return; >> >> + prev_swp_type = swp_type(entries[0]); >> + for (i = n - 1; i > 0; i--) { >> + if (swp_type(entries[i]) != prev_swp_type) >> + break; >> + } > > That's really what I want to avoid. For many swap usecases, > it adds unnecessary overhead. > >> + >> + /* Sort swap entries by swap device, so each lock is only taken once. */ >> + if (i) >> + sort(entries, n, sizeof(entries[0]), swp_entry_cmp, NULL); >> prev = NULL; >> p = NULL; >> for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) { >> - p = swap_info_get_cont(entries[i], prev); >> + entry = entries[i]; >> + p = swap_info_get_cont(entry, prev); >> if (p) >> - swap_entry_free(p, entries[i]); >> + swap_entry_free(p, entry); >> prev = p; >> } >> if (p) >> >> With this patch, the memory freeing time increased from 1.94s to 1.97s. >> I think this is good enough. Do you think so? > > What I mean is as follows(I didn't test it at all): > > With this, sort entries if we found multiple entries in current > entries. It adds some condition checks for non-multiple swap > usecase but it would be more cheaper than the sorting. > And it adds a [un]lock overhead for multiple swap usecase but > it should be a compromise for single-swap usecase which is more > popular. Yes. What I concerned is that one swap device may be locked twice instead of once during the freeing. I will give it some test. Best Regards, Huang, Ying > diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c > index f23c56e9be39..0d76a492786f 100644 > --- a/mm/swapfile.c > +++ b/mm/swapfile.c > @@ -1073,30 +1073,40 @@ static int swp_entry_cmp(const void *ent1, const void *ent2) > return (long)(swp_type(*e1) - swp_type(*e2)); > } > > -void swapcache_free_entries(swp_entry_t *entries, int n) > +void swapcache_free_entries(swp_entry_t *entries, int nr) > { > - struct swap_info_struct *p, *prev; > int i; > + struct swap_info_struct *cur, *prev = NULL; > + bool sorted = false; > > - if (n <= 0) > + if (nr <= 0) > return; > > - 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); > - for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) { > - p = swap_info_get_cont(entries[i], prev); > - if (p) > - swap_entry_free(p, entries[i]); > - else > + for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) { > + cur = swap_info_get_cont(entries[i], prev); > + if (!cur) > break; > - prev = p; > + if (cur != prev && !sorted && prev) { > + spin_unlock(&cur->lock); > + /* > + * Sort swap entries by swap device, > + * so each lock is only taken once. > + */ > + sort(entries + i, nr - i, > + sizeof(swp_entry_t), > + swp_entry_cmp, NULL); > + sorted = true; > + prev = NULL; > + i--; > + continue; > + } > + > + swap_entry_free(cur, entries[i]); > + prev = cur; > } > - if (p) > - spin_unlock(&p->lock); > + > + if (cur) > + spin_unlock(&cur->lock); > } > > /* -- 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>