On 01/03/2024 16:44, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 01/03/2024 16:31, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 04:27:32PM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> I've implemented the batching as David suggested, and I'm pretty confident it's
>>> correct. The only problem is that during testing I can't provoke the code to
>>> take the path. I've been pouring through the code but struggling to figure out
>>> under what situation you would expect the swap entry passed to
>>> free_swap_and_cache() to still have a cached folio? Does anyone have any idea?
>>>
>>> This is the original (unbatched) function, after my change, which caused David's
>>> concern that we would end up calling __try_to_reclaim_swap() far too much:
>>>
>>> int free_swap_and_cache(swp_entry_t entry)
>>> {
>>> struct swap_info_struct *p;
>>> unsigned char count;
>>>
>>> if (non_swap_entry(entry))
>>> return 1;
>>>
>>> p = _swap_info_get(entry);
>>> if (p) {
>>> count = __swap_entry_free(p, entry);
>>> if (count == SWAP_HAS_CACHE)
>>> __try_to_reclaim_swap(p, swp_offset(entry),
>>> TTRS_UNMAPPED | TTRS_FULL);
>>> }
>>> return p != NULL;
>>> }
>>>
>>> The trouble is, whenever its called, count is always 0, so
>>> __try_to_reclaim_swap() never gets called.
>>>
>>> My test case is allocating 1G anon memory, then doing madvise(MADV_PAGEOUT) over
>>> it. Then doing either a munmap() or madvise(MADV_FREE), both of which cause this
>>> function to be called for every PTE, but count is always 0 after
>>> __swap_entry_free() so __try_to_reclaim_swap() is never called. I've tried for
>>> order-0 as well as PTE- and PMD-mapped 2M THP.
>>
>> I think you have to page it back in again, then it will have an entry in
>> the swap cache. Maybe. I know little about anon memory ;-)
>
> Ahh, I was under the impression that the original folio is put into the swap
> cache at swap out, then (I guess) its removed once the IO is complete? I'm sure
> I'm miles out... what exactly is the lifecycle of a folio going through swap out?
>
> I guess I can try forking after swap out, then fault it back in in the child and
> exit. Then do the munmap in the parent. I guess that could force it? Thanks for
> the tip - I'll have a play.
That has sort of solved it, the only problem now is that all the folios in the
swap cache are small (because I don't have Barry's large swap-in series). So
really I need to figure out how to avoid removing the folio from the cache in
the first place...
>
>>
>> If that doesn't work, perhaps use tmpfs, and use some memory pressure to
>> force that to swap?
>>
>>> I'm guessing the swapcache was already reclaimed as part of MADV_PAGEOUT? I'm
>>> using a block ram device as my backing store - I think this does synchronous IO
>>> so perhaps if I have a real block device with async IO I might have more luck?
>>> Just a guess...
>>>
>>> Or perhaps this code path is a corner case? In which case, perhaps its not worth
>>> adding the batching optimization after all?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ryan
>>>
>
