On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 5:06 PM Sridhar, Kanchana P <kanchana.p.sridhar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 2:35 PM > > To: Sridhar, Kanchana P <kanchana.p.sridhar@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx; > > hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx; yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx; ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx; > > Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>; 21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx; akpm@linux- > > foundation.org; Zou, Nanhai <nanhai.zou@xxxxxxxxx>; Feghali, Wajdi K > > <wajdi.k.feghali@xxxxxxxxx>; Gopal, Vinodh <vinodh.gopal@xxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] mm: ZSWAP swap-out of mTHP folios > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 2:35 AM Kanchana P Sridhar > > <kanchana.p.sridhar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > This patch-series enables zswap_store() to accept and store mTHP > > > folios. The most significant contribution in this series is from the > > > earlier RFC submitted by Ryan Roberts [1]. Ryan's original RFC has been > > > migrated to v6.11-rc3 in patch 2/4 of this series. > > > > > > [1]: [RFC PATCH v1] mm: zswap: Store large folios without splitting > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20231019110543.3284654-1- > > ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx/T/#u > > > > > > Additionally, there is an attempt to modularize some of the functionality > > > in zswap_store(), to make it more amenable to supporting any-order > > > mTHPs. For instance, the function zswap_store_entry() stores a > > zswap_entry > > > in the xarray. Likewise, zswap_delete_stored_offsets() can be used to > > > delete all offsets corresponding to a higher order folio stored in zswap. > > > > > > > Will this have any conflict with mTHP swap work? Especially with mTHP > > swap-in and zswap writeback. > > > > My understanding is from zswap's perspective, the large folio is > > broken apart into independent subpages, correct? What happens when we > > have partially written back mTHP (i.e some subpages are in zswap > > still, whereas others are written back to swap). Would this > > automatically prevent mTHP swapin? > > That is a good point. To begin with, this patch-series would make the default > behavior for mTHP swapout/storage and swapin for ZSWAP to be on par with > ZRAM. From zswap's perspective, imo this is a significant step forward towards > realizing cold memory storage with mTHP folios. However, it is only a starting > point that makes the behavior uniform across zswap/zram. Initially, workloads > would see a one-time benefit with reclaim being able to swapout mTHP > folios without splitting, to zswap. If the mTHPs were cold memory, then we > would have derived latency gains towards memory savings (with zswap). > > However, if the mTHP were part of "not so cold" memory, this would result > in a one-way mTHP conversion to 4K folios. Depending on workloads and their > access patterns, we could either see individual 4K folios being swapped in, > or entire chunks if not the entire (original) mTHP needing to be swapped in. > > It should be noted that this is more of a performance vs. cold memory > preservation trade-off that needs to drive mTHP reclaim, storage, swapin and > writeback policy. Different workloads could require different policies. However, > even though this patch is only a starting point, it is still functionally correct > by being equivalent to zram-mTHP, and compatible with the rest of mm and > swap as far as mTHP. Another important functionality/data consistency decision > I made in this patch series is error handling during zswap_store() of mTHP: > in case of any errors, all swap offsets for the mTHP are deleted from the > zswap xarray/zpool, since we know that the mTHP will now have to be stored > in the backing swap device. IOW, an mTHP is either entirely stored in zswap, > or entirely not stored in zswap. > > To answer your question, we would need to come up with what the semantics > would need to be for zswap zpool storage granularity, swapin granularity, > readahead granularity and writeback wrt mTHP and how the overall swap > sub-system needs to "preserve" mTHP vs. splitting mTHP into 4K/lower-order > folios during swapout. Once we have a good understanding of these policies, > we could implement them in zswap. Alternately, develop an abstraction that is > one level above zswap/zram and makes things easier and shareable between > zswap and zram. By this, I mean fundamental assumptions such as consecutive > swap offsets (for instance). To some extent, this implies that an mTHP as a > swap entity is defined by consecutiveness of swap offsets. Maybe the policy > to keep mTHPs in the system over extended duration might be to assemble > them dynamically based on swapin_readahead() decisions (which is based on > workload access patterns). In other words, mTHPs could be a useful abstraction > that can be static or even dynamic based on working set characteristics, and > cold memory preservation. This is quite a complex topic imho. > > As we know, Barry Song and Chuanhua Han have started the discussion on > this in their zram mTHP swapin series [1]. Yeah I'm a bit more concerned with the correctness aspect. As long as it's not buggy, then we can implement mTHP zswapout first, and force individual subpage (z)swapin for now (since we cannot control writeback from writing individual subpages). We can discuss strategy to harmonize mTHP, zswap (with writeback) as we go along. BTW, I think we're not cc-ing Chengming? Is the get_maintainers script not working properly... Let me manually add him in - please include him in future submission and responses, as he is also a zswap reviewer :) Also cc-ing Usama who is interested in this work. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240821074541.516249-3-hanchuanhua@xxxxxxxx/T/#u > > Thanks, > Kanchana
