On Sat, Oct 12, 2024 at 11:27 AM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 8:05 PM Kairui Song <ryncsn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> 于 2024年10月12日周六 02:28写道：
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 10:53:31AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 10:20 AM Kairui Song <ryncsn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Kairui Song <kasong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > zswap_invalidation simply calls xa_erase, which acquires the Xarray
> > > > > lock first, then does a look up. This has a higher overhead even if
> > > > > zswap is not used or the tree is empty.
> > > > >
> > > > > So instead, do a very lightweight xa_empty check first, if there is
> > > > > nothing to erase, don't touch the lock or the tree.
> > >
> > > Great idea!
> > >
> > > > XA_STATE(xas, ..);
> > > >
> > > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > > entry = xas_load(&xas);
> > > > if (entry) {
> > > > xas_lock(&xas);
> > > > WARN_ON_ONCE(xas_reload(&xas) != entry);
> > > > xas_store(&xas, NULL);
> > > > xas_unlock(&xas);
> > > > }
> > > > rcu_read_unlock():
> > >
> > > This does the optimization more reliably, and I think we should go
> > > with this version.
> >
> > Hi Yosry and Johannes,
> >
> > This is a good idea. But xa_empty is just much lighweighter, it's just
> > a inlined ( == NULL ) check, so unsurprising it has better performance
> > than xas_load.
> >
> > And surprisingly it's faster than zswap_never_enabled. So I think it
> > could be doable to introduce something like zswap_may_have_swpentry as
> > Yosry suggested.
>
> That is surprising indeed, but it is cleaner anyway to use the xarray
> check than the static key.
>
> >
> > So how about a combined version with xas_load and xa_empty? Check
> > xa_empty first as a faster path, then xas_load, then xas_store.
>
> Yeah I think having an additional xa_empty() check before xas_load() is fine.
>
> >
> > Here is the benchmark result (time of swapin 2G zero pages in us):
> >
> > Before: 1908944 1905870 1905322 1905627 1901667
> > xa_empty: 1835343 1827367 1828402 1831841 1832719
> > z.._enabled: 1838428 1831162 1838205 1837287 1840980
> > xas_load: 1874606 1878971 1870182 1875852 1873403
> > combined: 1845309 1832919 1831904 1836455 1842570
> >
> > `combined` is xa_empty + xas_load.
>
> Is this with SSD swap? If you are using brd, it bypasses the swapcache
> so the benefit from the xas_load() optimization won't be much visible
> (see my earlier email as well as Johannes's).
Hi, I'm using brd indeed.
This test is trying to show the zswap disabled case, so I think swap
cache has no effect here?
For the zswap enabled case I do believe xas_load will work better,
I'll add some test info in the combined V2, will test some other
workload with the brd SYNC flag removed, sequential swapin with zswap
enabled have almost no performance change with this commit.
