On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 4:22 PM Nhat Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Currently, there are a couple of issues with our disk swapin tracking > for dynamic zswap shrinker heuristics: > > 1. We only increment the swapin counter on pivot pages. This means we > are not taking into account pages that also need to be swapped in, > but are already taken care of as part of the readahead window. > > 2. We are also incrementing when the pages are read from the zswap pool, > which is inaccurate. > > This patch rectifies these issues by incrementing the counter whenever > we need to perform a non-zswap read. Note that we are slightly > overcounting, as a page might be read into memory by the readahead > algorithm even though it will not be neeeded by users - however, this is needed* > an acceptable inaccuracy, as the readahead logic itself will adapt to > these kind of scenarios. > > To test this change, I built the kernel under a cgroup with its > memory.max set to 2 GB: > > real: 236.66s > user: 4286.06s > sys: 652.86s > swapins: 81552 > > For comparison, with just the new second chance algorithm, the build > time is as follows: > > real: 244.85s > user: 4327.22s > sys: 664.39s > swapins: 94663 > > Without neither: > > real: 263.89s > user: 4318.11s > sys: 673.29s > swapins: 227300.5 > > (average over 5 runs) > > With this change, the kernel CPU time reduces by a further 1.7%, and > the real time is reduced by another 3.3%, compared to just the second > chance algorithm by itself. The swapins count also reduces by another > 13.85%. > > Combinng the two changes, we reduce the real time by 10.32%, kernel CPU Combining* > time by 3%, and number of swapins by 64.12%. > > To gauge the new scheme's ability to offload cold data, I ran another > benchmark, in which the kernel was built under a cgroup with memory.max > set to 3 GB, but with 0.5 GB worth of cold data allocated before each > build (in a shmem file). > > Under the old scheme: > > real: 197.18s > user: 4365.08s > sys: 289.02s > zswpwb: 72115.2 > > Under the new scheme: > > real: 195.8s > user: 4362.25s > sys: 290.14s > zswpwb: 87277.8 > > (average over 5 runs) > > Notice that we actually observe a 21% increase in the number of written > back pages - so the new scheme is just as good, if not better at > offloading pages from the zswap pool when they are cold. Build time > reduces by around 0.7% as a result. > > Fixes: b5ba474f3f51 ("zswap: shrink zswap pool based on memory pressure") > Suggested-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > mm/page_io.c | 11 ++++++++++- > mm/swap_state.c | 8 ++------ > 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/page_io.c b/mm/page_io.c > index ff8c99ee3af7..0004c9fbf7e8 100644 > --- a/mm/page_io.c > +++ b/mm/page_io.c > @@ -521,7 +521,15 @@ void swap_read_folio(struct folio *folio, struct swap_iocb **plug) > > if (zswap_load(folio)) { > folio_unlock(folio); > - } else if (data_race(sis->flags & SWP_FS_OPS)) { > + goto finish; > + } > + > + /* > + * We have to read the page from slower devices. Increase zswap protection. > + */ Can we fit this on a single line? Anyway, LGTM: Acked-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx>