On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 04:43:20 +0800 Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm using a fast SSD to do swap. scan_swap_map() sometimes uses up to 20~30%
> CPU time (when cluster is hard to find, the CPU time can be up to 80%), which
> becomes a bottleneck. scan_swap_map() scans a byte array to search a 256 page
> cluster, which is very slow.
>
> Here I introduced a simple algorithm to search cluster. Since we only care
> about 256 pages cluster, we can just use a counter to track if a cluster is
> free. Every 256 pages use one int to store the counter. If the counter of a
> cluster is 0, the cluster is free. All free clusters will be added to a list,
> so searching cluster is very efficient. With this, scap_swap_map() overhead
> disappears.
>
> This might help low end SD card swap too. Because if the cluster is aligned, SD
> firmware can do flash erase more efficiently.
>
> We only enable the algorithm for SSD. Hard disk swap isn't fast enough and has
> downside with the algorithm which might introduce regression (see below).
>
> The patch slightly changes which cluster is choosen. It always adds free
> cluster to list tail. This can help wear leveling for low end SSD too. And if
> no cluster found, the scan_swap_map() will do search from the end of last
> cluster. So if no cluster found, the scan_swap_map() will do search from the
> end of last free cluster, which is random. For SSD, this isn't a problem at
> all.
>
> Another downside is the cluster must be aligned to 256 pages, which will reduce
> the chance to find a cluster. I would expect this isn't a big problem for SSD
> because of the non-seek penality. (And this is the reason I only enable the
> algorithm for SSD).
I have to agree with Will here - the patch adds a significant new
design/algorithm into core MM but there wasn't even an attempt to
describe it within the code.
The changelog provdes a reasonable overview, most notably the second
paragraph. Could you please find a way to flesh that part out a bit
then integrate it into a code comment? And yes, the major functions
should have their own comments explaining how they serve the overall
scheme.
> --- linux.orig/include/linux/swap.h 2013-07-11 19:14:36.849910383 +0800
> +++ linux/include/linux/swap.h 2013-07-11 19:14:38.657887654 +0800
> @@ -182,6 +182,17 @@ enum {
> #define SWAP_MAP_SHMEM 0xbf /* Owned by shmem/tmpfs, in first swap_map */
>
> /*
> + * the data field stores next cluster if the cluster is free or cluster counter
> + * otherwise
> + */
> +struct swap_cluster_info {
> + unsigned int data:24;
> + unsigned int flags:8;
> +};
If I'm understanding it correctly, the code and data structures which
this patch adds are all protected by swap_info_struct.lock, yes? This
is also worth mentioning in a comment, perhaps at the swap_cluster_info
definition site
> +#define CLUSTER_FLAG_FREE 1 /* This cluster is free */
> +#define CLUSTER_FLAG_NEXT_NULL 2 /* This cluster has no next cluster */
>
> ...
>
> @@ -2117,13 +2311,28 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(swapon, const char __use
> error = -ENOMEM;
> goto bad_swap;
> }
> + if (p->bdev && blk_queue_nonrot(bdev_get_queue(p->bdev))) {
> + p->flags |= SWP_SOLIDSTATE;
> + /*
> + * select a random position to start with to help wear leveling
> + * SSD
> + */
> + p->cluster_next = 1 + (prandom_u32() % p->highest_bit);
> +
> + cluster_info = vzalloc(DIV_ROUND_UP(maxpages,
> + SWAPFILE_CLUSTER) * sizeof(*cluster_info));
OK, what is the upper bound on the size of this allocation?
A failure here would be bad - perhaps a list is needed, rather than a
flat array.
> + if (!cluster_info) {
> + error = -ENOMEM;
> + goto bad_swap;
> + }
> + }
>
> ...
>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>