On 2023/12/7 11:13, Chengming Zhou wrote:
> On 2023/12/7 04:08, Nhat Pham wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 1:46 AM Chengming Zhou
>> <zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> When testing the zswap performance by using kernel build -j32 in a tmpfs
>>> directory, I found the scalability of zswap rb-tree is not good, which
>>> is protected by the only spinlock. That would cause heavy lock contention
>>> if multiple tasks zswap_store/load concurrently.
>>>
>>> So a simple solution is to split the only one zswap rb-tree into multiple
>>> rb-trees, each corresponds to SWAP_ADDRESS_SPACE_PAGES (64M). This idea is
>>> from the commit 4b3ef9daa4fc ("mm/swap: split swap cache into 64MB trunks").
>>>
>>> Although this method can't solve the spinlock contention completely, it
>>> can mitigate much of that contention.
>>
>> By how much? Do you have any stats to estimate the amount of
>> contention and the reduction by this patch?
>
> Actually, I did some test using the linux-next 20231205 yesterday.
>
> Testcase: memory.max = 2G, zswap enabled, make -j32 in tmpfs.
>
> 20231205 +patchset
> 1. !shrinker_enabled: 156s 126s
> 2. shrinker_enabled: 79s 70s
>
> I think your zswap shrinker fix patch can solve !shrinker_enabled case.
>
> So will test again today using the new mm-unstable branch.
>
Updated test data based on today's mm-unstable branch:
mm-unstable +patchset
1. !shrinker_enabled: 86s 74s
2. shrinker_enabled: 63s 61s
Shows much less optimization for the shrinker_enabled case, but still
much optimization for the !shrinker_enabled case.
Thanks!
