On 02/20/25 at 10:48am, Kairui Song wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 10:35 AM Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 02/19/25 at 07:12pm, Kairui Song wrote:
> > >
> > > > n reality it may be very difficult to achieve the 'each 2M space has been consumed for each order',
> > >
> > > Very true, but notice for order >= 1, slot cache never worked before.
> > > And for order == 0, it's very likely that a cluster will have more
> > > than 64 slots usable. The test result I posted should be a good
> > > example, and device is very full during the test, and performance is
> > > basically identical to before. My only concern was about the device
> >
> > My worry is the global percpu cluster may impact performance among
> > multiple swap devices. Before, per si percpu cluster will cache the
> > valid offset in one cluster for each order. For multiple swap devices,
> > this consumes a little bit more percpu memory. While the new global
> > percpu cluster could be updated to a different swap device easily only
> > of one order is available, then the whole array is invalid. That looks a
> > little drastic cmpared with before.
>
> Ah, now I got what you mean. That's seems could be a problem indeed.
>
> I think I can change the
>
> +struct percpu_swap_cluster {
> + struct swap_info_struct *si;
>
> to
>
> +struct percpu_swap_cluster {
> + struct swap_info_struct *si[SWAP_NR_ORDERS];
>
> Or embed the swp type in the offset, this way each order won't affect
> each other. How do you think?
Yes, this looks much better. You may need store both si and offset, the
above demonstrated struct percpu_swap_cluster lacks offset which seems
not good.
>
> Previously high order allocation will bypass slot cache so allocation
> could happen on different same priority devices too. So the behaviour
> that each order using different device should be acceptable.
>
> >
> > Yeah, the example you shown looks good. Wonder how many swap devices are
> > simulated in your example.
> >
> > > rotating, as slot cache never worked for order >= 1, so the device
> > > rotates was very frequently. But still seems no one really cared about
> > > it, mthp swapout is a new thing and the previous rotation rule seems
> > > even more confusing than this new idea.
> >
> > I never contact a real product environment with multiple tier and
> > many swap devices. In reality, with my shallow knowledge, usually only
> > one swap device is deployed. If that's true in most of time, the old
> > code or new code is fine, otherwise, seems we may need consider the
> > impact.
>
