On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 6:50 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, Barry, > > Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 2:59 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:51:11 -0700 Chris Li <chrisl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > > I'm having trouble understanding the overall impact of this on users. > >> > > We fail the mTHP swap allocation and fall back, but things continue to > >> > > operate OK? > >> > > >> > Continue to operate OK in the sense that the mTHP will have to split > >> > into 4K pages before the swap out, aka the fall back. The swap out and > >> > swap in can continue to work as 4K pages, not as the mTHP. Due to the > >> > fallback, the mTHP based zsmalloc compression with 64K buffer will not > >> > happen. That is the effect of the fallback. But mTHP swap out and swap > >> > in is relatively new, it is not really a regression. > >> > >> Sure, but it's pretty bad to merge a new feature only to have it > >> ineffective after a few hours use. > >> > >> > > > >> > > > There is some test number in the V1 thread of this series: > >> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240524-swap-allocator-v1-0-47861b423b26@xxxxxxxxxx > >> > > > >> > > Well, please let's get the latest numbers into the latest patchset. > >> > > Along with a higher-level (and quantitative) description of the user impact. > >> > > >> > I will need Barray's help to collect the number. I don't have the > >> > setup to reproduce his test result. > >> > Maybe a follow up commit message amendment for the test number when I get it? > > > > Although the issue may seem complex at a systemic level, even a small program can > > demonstrate the problem and highlight how Chris's patch has improved the > > situation. > > > > To demonstrate this, I designed a basic test program that maximally allocates > > two memory blocks: > > > > * A memory block of up to 60MB, recommended for HUGEPAGE usage > > * A memory block of up to 1MB, recommended for NOHUGEPAGE usage > > > > In the system configuration, I enabled 64KB mTHP and 64MB zRAM, providing more than > > enough space for both the 60MB and 1MB allocations in the worst case. This setup > > allows us to assess two effects: > > > > 1. When we don't enable mem2 (small folios), we consistently allocate and free > > swap slots aligned with 64KB. whether there is a risk of failure to obtain > > swap slots even though the zRAM has sufficient free space? > > 2. When we enable mem2 (small folios), the presence of small folios may lead > > to fragmentation of clusters, potentially impacting the swapout process for > > large folios negatively. > > > > (2) can be enabled by "-s", without -s, small folios are disabled. > > > > The script to configure zRAM and mTHP: > > > > echo lzo > /sys/block/zram0/comp_algorithm > > echo 64M > /sys/block/zram0/disksize > > echo never > /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/hugepages-2048kB/enabled > > echo always > /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/hugepages-64kB/enabled > > mkswap /dev/zram0 > > swapon /dev/zram0 > > > > The test program I made today after receiving Chris' patchset v2 > > > > (Andrew, Please let me know if you want this small test program to > > be committed into kernel/tools/ folder. If yes, please let me know, > > and I will cleanup and prepare a patch): > > > > #define _GNU_SOURCE > > #include <stdio.h> > > #include <stdlib.h> > > #include <unistd.h> > > #include <string.h> > > #include <sys/mman.h> > > #include <errno.h> > > #include <time.h> > > > > #define MEMSIZE_MTHP (60 * 1024 * 1024) > > #define MEMSIZE_SMALLFOLIO (1 * 1024 * 1024) > > #define ALIGNMENT_MTHP (64 * 1024) > > #define ALIGNMENT_SMALLFOLIO (4 * 1024) > > #define TOTAL_DONTNEED_MTHP (16 * 1024 * 1024) > > #define TOTAL_DONTNEED_SMALLFOLIO (256 * 1024) > > #define MTHP_FOLIO_SIZE (64 * 1024) > > > > #define SWPOUT_PATH \ > > "/sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/hugepages-64kB/stats/swpout" > > #define SWPOUT_FALLBACK_PATH \ > > "/sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/hugepages-64kB/stats/swpout_fallback" > > > > static void *aligned_alloc_mem(size_t size, size_t alignment) > > { > > void *mem = NULL; > > if (posix_memalign(&mem, alignment, size) != 0) { > > perror("posix_memalign"); > > return NULL; > > } > > return mem; > > } > > > > static void random_madvise_dontneed(void *mem, size_t mem_size, > > size_t align_size, size_t total_dontneed_size) > > { > > size_t num_pages = total_dontneed_size / align_size; > > size_t i; > > size_t offset; > > void *addr; > > > > for (i = 0; i < num_pages; ++i) { > > offset = (rand() % (mem_size / align_size)) * align_size; > > addr = (char *)mem + offset; > > if (madvise(addr, align_size, MADV_DONTNEED) != 0) { > > perror("madvise dontneed"); > > } > > memset(addr, 0x11, align_size); > > } > > } > > > > static unsigned long read_stat(const char *path) > > { > > FILE *file; > > unsigned long value; > > > > file = fopen(path, "r"); > > if (!file) { > > perror("fopen"); > > return 0; > > } > > > > if (fscanf(file, "%lu", &value) != 1) { > > perror("fscanf"); > > fclose(file); > > return 0; > > } > > > > fclose(file); > > return value; > > } > > > > int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > > { > > int use_small_folio = 0; > > int i; > > void *mem1 = aligned_alloc_mem(MEMSIZE_MTHP, ALIGNMENT_MTHP); > > if (mem1 == NULL) { > > fprintf(stderr, "Failed to allocate 60MB memory\n"); > > return EXIT_FAILURE; > > } > > > > if (madvise(mem1, MEMSIZE_MTHP, MADV_HUGEPAGE) != 0) { > > perror("madvise hugepage for mem1"); > > free(mem1); > > return EXIT_FAILURE; > > } > > > > for (i = 1; i < argc; ++i) { > > if (strcmp(argv[i], "-s") == 0) { > > use_small_folio = 1; > > } > > } > > > > void *mem2 = NULL; > > if (use_small_folio) { > > mem2 = aligned_alloc_mem(MEMSIZE_SMALLFOLIO, ALIGNMENT_MTHP); > > if (mem2 == NULL) { > > fprintf(stderr, "Failed to allocate 1MB memory\n"); > > free(mem1); > > return EXIT_FAILURE; > > } > > > > if (madvise(mem2, MEMSIZE_SMALLFOLIO, MADV_NOHUGEPAGE) != 0) { > > perror("madvise nohugepage for mem2"); > > free(mem1); > > free(mem2); > > return EXIT_FAILURE; > > } > > } > > > > for (i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { > > unsigned long initial_swpout; > > unsigned long initial_swpout_fallback; > > unsigned long final_swpout; > > unsigned long final_swpout_fallback; > > unsigned long swpout_inc; > > unsigned long swpout_fallback_inc; > > double fallback_percentage; > > > > initial_swpout = read_stat(SWPOUT_PATH); > > initial_swpout_fallback = read_stat(SWPOUT_FALLBACK_PATH); > > > > random_madvise_dontneed(mem1, MEMSIZE_MTHP, ALIGNMENT_MTHP, > > TOTAL_DONTNEED_MTHP); > > > > if (use_small_folio) { > > random_madvise_dontneed(mem2, MEMSIZE_SMALLFOLIO, > > ALIGNMENT_SMALLFOLIO, > > TOTAL_DONTNEED_SMALLFOLIO); > > } > > > > if (madvise(mem1, MEMSIZE_MTHP, MADV_PAGEOUT) != 0) { > > perror("madvise pageout for mem1"); > > free(mem1); > > if (mem2 != NULL) { > > free(mem2); > > } > > return EXIT_FAILURE; > > } > > > > if (use_small_folio) { > > if (madvise(mem2, MEMSIZE_SMALLFOLIO, MADV_PAGEOUT) != 0) { > > perror("madvise pageout for mem2"); > > free(mem1); > > free(mem2); > > return EXIT_FAILURE; > > } > > } > > > > final_swpout = read_stat(SWPOUT_PATH); > > final_swpout_fallback = read_stat(SWPOUT_FALLBACK_PATH); > > > > swpout_inc = final_swpout - initial_swpout; > > swpout_fallback_inc = final_swpout_fallback - initial_swpout_fallback; > > > > fallback_percentage = (double)swpout_fallback_inc / > > (swpout_fallback_inc + swpout_inc) * 100; > > > > printf("Iteration %d: swpout inc: %lu, swpout fallback inc: %lu, Fallback percentage: %.2f%%\n", > > i + 1, swpout_inc, swpout_fallback_inc, fallback_percentage); > > } > > > > free(mem1); > > if (mem2 != NULL) { > > free(mem2); > > } > > > > return EXIT_SUCCESS; > > } > > Thank you very for your effort to write this test program. > > TBH, personally, I thought that this test program isn't practical > enough. Can we show performance difference with some normal workloads? Right. The whole purpose of this small program is to demonstrate the problem in the current code - even swap slots are always allocated and released aligned with mTHP, the current mainline will soon get 100% fallback ratio though swap space is enough, and swap slots are not fragmented at all. as long as we lose empty clusters, we lose the chance to do mthp swapout. We are still running tests using real Android phones with real workloads, and will update you with the result hopefully this week. I am a little worried that the triggered WARN_ONCE will lead to the failure of the test. > > [snip] > > -- > Best Regards, > Huang, Ying Thanks Barry
