On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 04:05:26PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 09:09:53AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 08:42:10PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> >> 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.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> How about the following solution? It can avoid [un]lock overhead and
> >> >> double lock issue for multiple swap user case and has good performance
> >> >> for one swap user case too.
> >> >
> >> > How worse with approach I suggested compared to as-is?
> >>
> >> The performance difference between your version and my version is small
> >> for my testing.
> >
> > If so, why should we add code to optimize further?
> >
> >>
> >> > Unless it's too bad, let's not add more complicated thing to just
> >> > enhance the minor usecase in such even *slow* path.
> >> > It adds code size/maintainance overead.
> >> > With your suggestion, it might enhance a bit with speicific benchmark
> >> > but not sure it's really worth for real practice.
> >>
> >> I don't think the code complexity has much difference between our latest
> >> versions. As for complexity, I think my original version which just
> >
> > What I suggested is to avoid pointless overhead for *major* usecase
> > and the code you are adding now is to optimize further for *minor*
> > usecase. And now I dobut the code you are adding is really worth
> > unless it makes a meaningful output.
> > If it doesn't, it adds just overhead(code size, maintainance, power and
> > performance). You might argue it's really *small* so it would be okay
> > but think about that you would be not only one in the community so
> > kernel bloats day by day with code to handle corner cases.
> >
> >> uses nr_swapfiles to avoid sort() for single swap device is simple and
> >> good enough for this task. Maybe we can just improve the correctness of
> >
> > But it hurts *major* usecase.
> >
> >> swap device counting as Tim suggested.
> >
> > I don't know what Tim suggested. Anyway, my point is that minor
> > usecase doesn't hurt major usecase and justify the benefit
> > if you want to put more. So I'm okay with either solution to
> > meet it.
>
> Tim suggested to add a mechanism to correctly track how many swap
> devices are in use in swapon/swapoff. So we only sort if the number of
> the swap device > 1. This will not cover multiple swap devices with
> different priorities, but will cover the major usecases. The code
> should be simpler.
As you know, it doesn't solve multiple swaps by priority.
Even, there are cases full with entries same swap device
although multiple swap devices are used.
So, I think runtime sorting by judging need to be sored is still
better.
--
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>
