Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 8:01 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 6:36 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 5:22 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 1:55 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Both Ryan and Chris have been utilizing the small test program to aid
>> >> >> >> > in debugging and identifying issues with swap entry allocation. While
>> >> >> >> > a real or intricate workload might be more suitable for assessing the
>> >> >> >> > correctness and effectiveness of the swap allocation policy, a small
>> >> >> >> > test program presents a simpler means of understanding the problem and
>> >> >> >> > initially verifying the improvements being made.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Let's endeavor to integrate it into the self-test suite. Although it
>> >> >> >> > presently only accommodates 64KB and 4KB, I'm optimistic that we can
>> >> >> >> > expand its capabilities to support multiple sizes and simulate more
>> >> >> >> > complex systems in the future as required.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> IIUC, this is a performance test program instead of functionality test
>> >> >> >> program. Does it match the purpose of the kernel selftest?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I have a differing perspective. I maintain that the functionality is
>> >> >> > not functioning
>> >> >> > as expected. Despite having all the necessary resources for allocation, failure
>> >> >> > persists, indicating a lack of functionality.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is there any user visual functionality issue?
>> >> >
>> >> > Definitely not. If a plane can't take off, taking a train and pretending
>> >> > there's no functionality issue isn't a solution.
>> >>
>> >> I always think that performance optimization is great work. However, it
>> >> is not functionality work.
>> >>
>> >> > I have never assigned blame for any mistakes here. On the contrary,
>> >> > I have 100% appreciation for Ryan's work in at least initiating mTHP
>> >> > swapout w/o being split.
>> >> >
>> >> > It took countless experiments for humans to make airplanes commercially
>> >> > viable, but the person who created the first flying airplane remains the
>> >> > greatest. Similarly, Ryan's efforts, combined with your review of his patch,
>> >> > have enabled us to achieve a better goal here. Without your work, we can't
>> >> > get here at all.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks!
>> >>
>> >> > However, this is never a reason to refuse to acknowledge that this feature
>> >> > is not actually working.
>> >>
>> >> It just works for some workloads, not for some others.
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> >> > ---
>> >> >> >> > tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile | 1 +
>> >> >> >> > .../selftests/mm/thp_swap_allocator_test.c | 192 ++++++++++++++++++
>> >> >> >> > 2 files changed, 193 insertions(+)
>> >> >> >> > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/mm/thp_swap_allocator_test.c
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile
>> >> >> >> > index e1aa09ddaa3d..64164ad66835 100644
>> >> >> >> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile
>> >> >> >> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/Makefile
>> >> >> >> > @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ TEST_GEN_FILES += mseal_test
>> >> >> >> > TEST_GEN_FILES += seal_elf
>> >> >> >> > TEST_GEN_FILES += on-fault-limit
>> >> >> >> > TEST_GEN_FILES += pagemap_ioctl
>> >> >> >> > +TEST_GEN_FILES += thp_swap_allocator_test
>> >> >> >> > TEST_GEN_FILES += thuge-gen
>> >> >> >> > TEST_GEN_FILES += transhuge-stress
>> >> >> >> > TEST_GEN_FILES += uffd-stress
>> >> >> >> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/thp_swap_allocator_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/thp_swap_allocator_test.c
>> >> >> >> > new file mode 100644
>> >> >> >> > index 000000000000..4443a906d0f8
>> >> >> >> > --- /dev/null
>> >> >> >> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/thp_swap_allocator_test.c
>> >> >> >> > @@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
>> >> >> >> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
>> >> >> >> > +/*
>> >> >> >> > + * thp_swap_allocator_test
>> >> >> >> > + *
>> >> >> >> > + * The purpose of this test program is helping check if THP swpout
>> >> >> >> > + * can correctly get swap slots to swap out as a whole instead of
>> >> >> >> > + * being split. It randomly releases swap entries through madvise
>> >> >> >> > + * DONTNEED and do swapout on two memory areas: a memory area for
>> >> >> >> > + * 64KB THP and the other area for small folios. The second memory
>> >> >> >> > + * can be enabled by "-s".
>> >> >> >> > + * Before running the program, we need to setup a zRAM or similar
>> >> >> >> > + * swap device by:
>> >> >> >> > + * 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 expected result should be 0% anon swpout fallback ratio w/ or
>> >> >> >> > + * w/o "-s".
>> >> >> >> > + *
>> >> >> >> > + * Author(s): Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> >> > + */
>> >> >> >> > +
>> >> >> >> > +#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 (768 * 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");
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> IIUC, this simulates align_size (generally 64KB) swap-in. That is, it
>> >> >> >> simulate the effect of large size swap-in when it's not available in
>> >> >> >> kernel. If we have large size swap-in in kernel in the future, this
>> >> >> >> becomes unnecessary.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Additionally, we have not reached the consensus that we should always
>> >> >> >> swap-in with swapped-out size. So, I suspect that this test may not
>> >> >> >> reflect real situation in the future. Although it doesn't reflect
>> >> >> >> current situation too.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Disagree again. releasing the whole mTHP swaps is the best case. Even in
>> >> >> > the best-case scenario, if we fail, it raises concerns for handling potentially
>> >> >> > more challenging situations.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Repeating sequential anonymous pages writing is the best case.
>> >> >
>> >> > I define the best case as the scenario with the least chance of creating
>> >> > fragments within swapfiles for mTHP to swap out. There is no real
>> >> > difference whether this is done through swapin or madv_dontneed.
>> >>
>> >> IMO, swapin is much more important than madv_dontneed. Because most
>> >> users use swapin automatically, but few use madv_dontneed by hand. So,
>> >> I think swapin/swapout test is much more important than madv_dontneed.
>> >> I don't like this test case because madv_dontneed isn't typical or
>> >> basic.
>> >
>> > Disliking DONTNEED isn't a sufficient reason to reject this test program because
>> > no single small program can report swapout counters, swapout fallback counters,
>> > and fallback ratios within several minutes for 100 iterations. That's
>> > precisely why
>> > we need it, at least initially. We can enhance it further if it lacks
>> > certain functionalities
>> > that people desire.
>> >
>> > The entire purpose of MADV_DONTNEED is to simulate a scenario where all
>> > slots are released as a whole, preventing the creation of fragments, which is
>> > most favorable for swap allocation. I believe there is no difference between
>> > using MADV_DONTNEED or swapin for this purpose. But I am perfectly fine
>> > with switching to swapin to replace MADV_DONTNEED in v2.
>>
>> Great! Thanks for doing this!
>>
>> And even better, can we not make swap-in address aligned and size
>> aligned? It's too unrealistic. It's good to consider some level of
>> spatial locality, for example, swap-in random number of pages
>> sequentially at some random addresses. That could be a good general
>> test program. We can use it to evaluate further swap optimizations, for
>> example, to evaluate the memory wastage of some swap-in size policy.
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with everything mentioned above; these are
> actually part of my plan as incremental patches. This initial commit
> serves as the first step of the three I proposed in the last email.
It will be a small test program to implement all these. Don't need to
use 3 steps. IMHO, it's not good to optimize for a unrealistic test
case with address aligned and size aligned swap-in. It's trivial to
remove the alignment requirements.
>> And, we don't need PAGEOUT too, just use large virtual address space in
>> test programs. We can trigger swapout in more common way.
>
> I'm not particularly enthusiastic about this idea, as I expect the test program
> to run quickly. A large virtual address space would result in long waiting times
> for the test results, as it relies on vmscan. Therefore, I hope we can use real
> workloads to achieve this instead.
I have use test program with large virtual address space (in
vm-scalability) to do swap test before. It runs really fast. Please
give it a try.
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
