Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> writes:
> On 18/07/2024 08:53, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Chris Li <chrisl@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 3:14 AM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 16/07/2024 23:46, Chris Li wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 8:40 AM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/07/2024 08:29, Chris Li wrote:
[snip]
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (!(ci->flags & CLUSTER_FLAG_NONFULL)) {
>>>>>>> + list_add_tail(&ci->list, &p->nonfull_clusters[ci->order]);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I find the transitions when you add and remove a cluster from the
>>>>>> nonfull_clusters list a bit strange (if I've understood correctly): It is added
>>>>>> to the list whenever there is at least one free swap entry if not already on the
>>>>>> list. But you take it off the list when assigning it as the current cluster for
>>>>>> a cpu in scan_swap_map_try_ssd_cluster().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you could have this situation:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - cpuA allocs cluster from free list (exclusive to that cpu)
>>>>>> - cpuA allocs 1 swap entry from current cluster
>>>>>> - swap entry is freed; cluster added to nonfull_clusters
>>>>>> - cpuB "allocs" cluster from nonfull_clusters
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At this point both cpuA and cpuB share the same cluster as their current
>>>>>> cluster. So why not just put the cluster on the nonfull_clusters list at
>>>>>> allocation time (when removed from free_list) and only remove it from the
>>>>>
>>>>> The big rewrite on patch 3 does that, taking it off the free list and
>>>>> moving it into nonfull.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, from the title, "RFC: mm: swap: seperate SSD allocation from
>>>> scan_swap_map_slots()" I assumed that was just a refactoring of the code to
>>>> separate the SSD and HDD code paths. Personally I'd prefer to see the
>>>> refactoring separated from behavioural changes.
>>>
>>> It is not a refactoring. It is a big rewrite of the swap allocator
>>> using the cluster. Behavior change is expected. The goal is completely
>>> removing the brute force scanning of swap_map[] array for cluster swap
>>> allocation.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since the patch was titled RFC and I thought it was just refactoring, I was
>>>> deferring review. But sounds like it is actually required to realize the test
>>>> results quoted on the cover letter?
>>>
>>> Yes, required because it handles the previous fall out case try_ssd()
>>> failed. This big rewrite has gone through a lot of testing and bug
>>> fix. It is pretty stable now. The only reason I keep it as RFC is
>>> because it is not feature complete. Currently it does not do swap
>>> cache reclaim. The next version will have swap cache reclaim and
>>> remove the RFC.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I am only making the minimal change in this step so the big rewrite can land.
>>>>>
>>>>>> nonfull_clusters list when it is completely full (or at least definitely doesn't
>>>>>> have room for an `order` allocation)? Then you allow "stealing" always instead
>>>>>> of just sometimes. You would likely want to move the cluster to the end of the
>>>>>> nonfull list when selecting it in scan_swap_map_try_ssd_cluster() to reduce the
>>>>>> chances of multiple CPUs using the same cluster.
>>>>>
>>>>> For nonfull clusters it is less important to avoid multiple CPU
>>>>> sharing the cluster. Because the cluster already has previous swap
>>>>> entries allocated from the previous CPU.
>>>>
>>>> But if 2 CPUs have the same cluster, isn't there a pathalogical case where cpuA
>>>> could be slightly ahead of cpuB so that cpuA allocates all the free pages and
>>>
>>> That happens to exist per cpu next pointer already. When the other CPU
>>> advances to the next cluster pointer, it can cross with the other
>>> CPU's next cluster pointer.
>>
>> No. si->percpu_cluster[cpu].next will keep in the current per cpu
>> cluster only. If it doesn't do that, we should fix it.
>>
>> I agree with Ryan that we should make per cpu cluster correct. A
>> cluster in per cpu cluster shouldn't be put in nonfull list. When we
>> scan to the end of a per cpu cluster, we can put the cluster in nonfull
>> list if necessary. And, we should make it correct in this patch instead
>> of later in series. I understand that you want to make the patch itself
>> simple, but it's important to make code simple to be understood too.
>> Consistent design choice will do that.
>
> I think I'm actually arguing for the opposite of what you suggest here.
Sorry, I misunderstood your words.
> As I see it, there are 2 possible approaches; either a cluster is always
> considered exclusive to a single cpu when its set as a per-cpu cluster, so it
> does not appear on the nonfull list. Or a cluster is considered sharable in this
> case, in which case it should be added to the nonfull list.
>
> The code at the moment sort of does both; when a cpu decides to use a cluster in
> the nonfull list, it removes it from that list to make it exclusive. But as soon
> as a single swap entry is freed from that cluster it is put back on the list.
> This neither-one-policy-nor-the-other seems odd to me.
>
> I think Huang, Ying is arguing to keep it always exclusive while installed as a
> per-cpu cluster.
Yes.
> I was arguing to make it always shared. Perhaps the best
> approach is to implement the exclusive policy in this patch (you'd need a flag
> to note if any pages were freed while in exclusive use, then when exclusive use
> completes, put it back on the nonfull list if the flag was set). Then migrate to
> the shared approach as part of the "big rewrite"?
>>
>>>> cpuB just ends up scanning and finding nothing to allocate. I think do want to
>>>> share the cluster when you really need to, but try to avoid it if there are
>>>> other options, and I think moving the cluster to the end of the list might be a
>>>> way to help that?
>>>
>>> Simply moving to the end of the list can create a possible deadloop
>>> when all clusters have been scanned and not available swap range
>>> found.
I also think that the shared approach has dead loop issue.
>> This is another reason that we should put the cluster in
>> nonfull_clusters[order--] if there are no free swap entry with "order"
>> in the cluster. It makes design complex to keep it in
>> nonfull_clusters[order].
>>
>>> We have tried many different approaches including moving to the end of
>>> the list. It can cause more fragmentation because each CPU allocates
>>> their swap slot cache (64 entries) from a different cluster.
>>>
>>>>> Those behaviors will be fine
>>>>> tuned after the patch 3 big rewrite. Try to make this patch simple.
>>>
>>> Again, I want to keep it simple here so patch 3 can land.
>>>
>>>>>> Another potential optimization (which was in my hacked version IIRC) is to only
>>>>>> add/remove from nonfull list when `total - count` crosses the (1 << order)
>>>>>> boundary rather than when becoming completely full. You definitely won't be able
>>>>>> to allocate order-2 if there are only 3 pages available, for example.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is in patch 3 as well. This patch is just doing the bare minimum
>>>>> to introduce the nonfull list.
>>>>>
[snip]
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
