"Sridhar, Kanchana P" <kanchana.p.sridhar@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi Nhat,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 4:46 PM
>> To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Sridhar, Kanchana P <kanchana.p.sridhar@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-
>> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx; hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx;
>> chengming.zhou@xxxxxxxxx; usamaarif642@xxxxxxxxx;
>> ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx; Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>;
>> 21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx; akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Zou, Nanhai
>> <nanhai.zou@xxxxxxxxx>; Feghali, Wajdi K <wajdi.k.feghali@xxxxxxxxx>;
>> Gopal, Vinodh <vinodh.gopal@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] mm: ZSWAP swap-out of mTHP folios
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 3:49 PM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 2:27 PM Kanchana P Sridhar
>> >
>> > We are basically comparing zram with zswap in this case, and it's not
>> > fair because, as you mentioned, the zswap compressed data is being
>> > accounted for while the zram compressed data isn't. I am not really
>> > sure how valuable these test results are. Even if we remove the cgroup
>> > accounting from zswap, we won't see an improvement, we should expect a
>> > similar performance to zram.
>> >
>> > I think the test results that are really valuable are case 1, where
>> > zswap users are currently disabling CONFIG_THP_SWAP, and get to enable
>> > it after this series.
>>
>> Ah, this is a good point.
>>
>> I think the point of comparing mTHP zswap v.s mTHP (SSD)swap is more
>> of a sanity check. IOW, if mTHP swap outperforms mTHP zswap, then
>> something is wrong (otherwise why would enable zswap - might as well
>> just use swap, since SSD swap with mTHP >>> zswap with mTHP >>> zswap
>> without mTHP).
>>
>> That said, I don't think this benchmark can show it anyway. The access
>> pattern here is such that all the allocated memories are really cold,
>> so swap to disk (or to zram, which does not account memory usage
>> towards cgroup) is better by definition... And Kanchana does not seem
>> to have access to setup with larger SSD swapfiles? :)
>
> As follow up, I created a swapfile on disk to increase the SSD swap to 179G.
Are you sure you used swapfile instead of a swap partition? From the
following code in scan_swap_map_slots(),
if (order > 0) {
/*
* Should not even be attempting large allocations when huge
* page swap is disabled. Warn and fail the allocation.
*/
if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_THP_SWAP) ||
nr_pages > SWAPFILE_CLUSTER) {
VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
return 0;
}
/*
* Swapfile is not block device or not using clusters so unable
* to allocate large entries.
*/
if (!(si->flags & SWP_BLKDEV) || !si->cluster_info)
return 0;
}
large folio will be split for swapfile.
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
> 64KB mTHP (cgroup memory.high set to 40G, no swap limit):
> =========================================================
> CONFIG_THP_SWAP=Y
> Sapphire Rapids server with 503 GiB RAM and 179G SSD swap backing device
> for zswap.
>
> usemem --init-time -w -O --sleep 0 -n 70 1g:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> mm-unstable 9-17-2024 zswap-mTHP v6 Change wrt
> Baseline Baseline
> "before" "after" (sleep 0)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ZSWAP compressor zstd deflate- zstd deflate- zstd deflate-
> iaa iaa iaa
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Throughput (KB/s) 93,273 88,496 143,117 134,131 53% 52%
> sys time (sec) 316.68 349.00 917.88 877.74 -190% -152%
> memcg_high 73,836 83,522 126,120 133,013
> memcg_swap_fail 261,136 324,533 494,191 578,824
> pswpin 16 11 0 0
> pswpout 1,242,187 1,263,493 0 0
> zswpin 694 668 712 702
> zswpout 3,991,403 4,933,901 9,289,092 10,461,948
> thp_swpout 0 0 0 0
> thp_swpout_ 0 0 0 0
> fallback
> pgmajfault 3,488 3,353 3,377 3,499
> ZSWPOUT-64kB n/a n/a 110,067 103,957
> SWPOUT-64kB 77,637 78,968 0 0
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> We do see 50% throughput improvement with mTHP-zswap wrt mTHP-SSD.
> The sys time increase can be attributed to higher swapout activity
> occurring with zswap-mTHP.
>
> I hope this quantifies the benefit of mTHP-zswap wrt mTHP-SSD in a
> non-swap-constrained setup. The 4G SSD swap setup data I shared
> in my response to Yosry also indicates better throughput with mTHP-zswap
> as compared to mTHP-SSD.
>
> Please do let me know if you have any other questions/suggestions.
>
> Thanks,
> Kanchana
>
>>
>> >
>> > If we really want to compare CONFIG_THP_SWAP on before and after, it
>> > should be with SSD because that's a more conventional setup. In this
>> > case the users that have CONFIG_THP_SWAP=y only experience the
>> > benefits of zswap with this series. You mentioned experimenting with
>> > usemem to keep the memory allocated longer so that you're able to have
>> > a fair test with the small SSD swap setup. Did that work?
>> >
>> > I am hoping Nhat or Johannes would shed some light on whether they
>> > usually have CONFIG_THP_SWAP enabled or not with zswap. I am trying to
>> > figure out if any reasonable setups enable CONFIG_THP_SWAP with zswap.
>> > Otherwise the testing results from case 1 should be sufficient.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > In my opinion, even though the test set up does not provide an accurate
>> > > way for a direct before/after comparison (because of zswap usage being
>> > > counted in cgroup, hence towards the memory.high), it still seems
>> > > reasonable for zswap_store to support (m)THP, so that further
>> performance
>> > > improvements can be implemented.
>> >
>> > This is only referring to the results of case 2, right?
>> >
>> > Honestly, I wouldn't want to merge mTHP swapout support on its own
>> > just because it enables further performance improvements without
>> > having actual patches for them. But I don't think this captures the
>> > results accurately as it dismisses case 1 results (which I think are
>> > more reasonable).
>> >
>> > Thnaks
