On 5/30/22 16:39, Steven Price wrote:
> On 30/05/2022 10:53, Barry Song wrote:
>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 7:07 PM Anshuman Khandual
>> <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Barry,
>>
>> Hi Anshuman,
>> thanks!
>>
>>>
>>> On 5/27/22 15:36, Barry Song wrote:
>>>> From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> THP_SWAP has been proved to improve the swap throughput significantly
>>>> on x86_64 according to commit bd4c82c22c367e ("mm, THP, swap: delay
>>>> splitting THP after swapped out").
>>> It will be useful to run similar experiments on arm64 platform to
>>> demonstrate tangible benefit, else we might be just enabling this
>>> feature just because x86 has it. Do you have some data points ?
>>>
>>>> As long as arm64 uses 4K page size, it is quite similar with x86_64
>>>> by having 2MB PMD THP. So we are going to get similar improvement.
>>>
>>> This is an assumption without any data points (until now). Please
>>> do provide some results.
>>
>> Fair enough though I believe THP_SWP is arch-independent. Our testing
>> will post data. Plus, we do need it for real use cases with some possible
>> out-of-tree code for this moment. so this patch does not originate only
>> because x86 has it :-)
>>
>>>
>>>> For other page sizes such as 16KB and 64KB, PMD might be too large.
>>>> Negative side effects such as IO latency might be a problem. Thus,
>>>> we can only safely enable the counterpart of X86_64.
>>>
>>> Incorrect reasoning. Although sometimes it might be okay to enable
>>> a feature on platforms with possible assumptions about its benefits,
>>> but to claim 'similar improvement, safely, .. etc' while comparing
>>> against x86 4K page config without data points, is not very helpful.
>>>
>>>> A corner case is that MTE has an assumption that only base pages
>>>> can be swapped. We won't enable THP_SWP for ARM64 hardware with
>>>> MTE support until MTE is re-arched.
>>>
>>> re-arched ?? Did you imply that MTE is reworked to support THP ?
>>
>> I think at least MTE should be able to coexist with THP_SWP though
>> I am not quite sure if MTE can be re-worked to fully support THP.
>
> There's no fundamental reason it cannot coexist, but there are many open
> areas around MTE support in general. For example at the moment swap
> support keeps the tags in memory because there's no easy way to plumb
> the extra tag data into the swap infrastructure.
>
> The lazy zeroing of MTE tag storage has introduced a lot of complexity
> and THP is another case where this complexity would show. It's possible
> that it might make sense to take the hit of clearing tags in all pages
> (i.e. make clear_page() clear the tags like mte_zero_clear_page_tags()).
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cc: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 ++
>>>> include/linux/huge_mm.h | 12 ++++++++++++
>>>> mm/swap_slots.c | 2 +-
>>>> 4 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>>>> index a4968845e67f..5306009df2dc 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>>>> @@ -101,6 +101,7 @@ config ARM64
>>>> select ARCH_WANT_HUGETLB_PAGE_OPTIMIZE_VMEMMAP
>>>> select ARCH_WANT_LD_ORPHAN_WARN
>>>> select ARCH_WANTS_NO_INSTR
>>>> + select ARCH_WANTS_THP_SWAP if ARM64_4K_PAGES
>>>> select ARCH_HAS_UBSAN_SANITIZE_ALL
>>>> select ARM_AMBA
>>>> select ARM_ARCH_TIMER
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>> index 0b6632f18364..06076139c72c 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>> @@ -45,6 +45,8 @@
>>>> __flush_tlb_range(vma, addr, end, PUD_SIZE, false, 1)
>>>> #endif /* CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE */
>>>>
>>>> +#define arch_thp_swp_supported !system_supports_mte
>>>
>>> Does it check for 'system_supports_mte' as a symbol or call system_supports_mte()
>>> to ascertain runtime MTE support ? It might well be correct, but just does not
>>> look much intuitive.
>>
>> yep. looks a bit weird. but considering we only need this for arm64
>> and arch_thp_swp_supported
>> is a macro, I can't find a better way to make code modification
>> smaller than this in mm core, arm64
>> and x86. and probably we will totally remove it once we make MTE
>> co-exist with THP_SWP.
>>
>> Do you have any suggestions for a better solution?
>
> It would be better to write it as a function macro:
>
> #define arch_thp_swp_supported() (!system_supports_mte())
>
> or you could go the whole way and introduce a static inline function
> (overkill in this case IMHO):
>
> #define arch_thp_swp_supported
> static inline bool arch_thp_swp_supported(void)
> {
> return !system_supports_mte();
> }
I guess this approach is slightly better.
