On 2024/1/19 02:37, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 10:07 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 09:30:12AM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 7:34 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 10:37:22AM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 1:23 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. Below is the results of kernel build
>>>>>> in tmpfs with zswap shrinker enabled:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> linux-next zswap-lock-optimize
>>>>>> real 1m9.181s 1m3.820s
>>>>>> user 17m44.036s 17m40.100s
>>>>>> sys 7m37.297s 4m54.622s
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So there are clearly improvements. And it's complementary with the ongoing
>>>>>> zswap xarray conversion by Chris. Anyway, I think we can also merge this
>>>>>> first, it's complementary IMHO. So I just refresh and resend this for
>>>>>> further discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason why I think we should wait for the xarray patch(es) is
>>>>> there is a chance we may see less improvements from splitting the tree
>>>>> if it was an xarray. If we merge this series first, there is no way to
>>>>> know.
>>>>
>>>> I mentioned this before, but I disagree quite strongly with this
>>>> general sentiment.
>>>>
>>>> Chengming's patches are simple, mature, and have convincing
>>>> numbers. IMO it's poor form to hold something like that for "let's see
>>>> how our other experiment works out". The only exception would be if we
>>>> all agree that the earlier change flies in the face of the overall
>>>> direction we want to pursue, which I don't think is the case here.
>>>
>>> My intention was not to delay merging these patches until the xarray
>>> patches are merged in. It was only to wait until the xarray patches
>>> are *posted*, so that we can redo the testing on top of them and
>>> verify that the gains are still there. That should have been around
>>> now, but the xarray patches were posted in a form that does not allow
>>> this testing (because we still have a lock on the read path), so I am
>>> less inclined.
>>>
>>> My rationale was that if the gains from splitting the tree become
>>> minimal after we switch to an xarray, we won't know. It's more
>>> difficult to remove optimizations than to add them, because we may
>>> cause a regression. I am kind of paranoid about having code sitting
>>> around that we don't have full information about how much it's needed.
>>
>> Yeah I understand that fear.
>>
>> I expect the splitting to help more than the move to xarray because
>> it's the writes that are hot. Luckily in this case it should be fairly
>> easy to differential-test after it's been merged by changing that tree
>> lookup macro/function locally to always return &trees[type][0], right?
>
> Yeah that's exactly what I had in mind. Once we have a version of the
> xarray patch without the locking on the read side we can test with
> that. Chengming, does this sound reasonable to you?
It's ok, sounds reasonable to me. I agree with Johannes, we will need
both since xarray still have a spinlock in the writes, it's clearly
better to split it. As for testing, we can always return &trees[type][0].
Thanks!
