On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 5:35 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 8:43 AM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 7:43 AM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 3:43 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Hi, Barry,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Commit 13ddaf26be32 ("mm/swap: fix race when skipping swapcache")
> >> >> >> > introduced an unconditional one-tick sleep when `swapcache_prepare()`
> >> >> >> > fails, which has led to reports of UI stuttering on latency-sensitive
> >> >> >> > Android devices. To address this, we can use a waitqueue to wake up
> >> >> >> > tasks that fail `swapcache_prepare()` sooner, instead of always
> >> >> >> > sleeping for a full tick. While tasks may occasionally be woken by an
> >> >> >> > unrelated `do_swap_page()`, this method is preferable to two scenarios:
> >> >> >> > rapid re-entry into page faults, which can cause livelocks, and
> >> >> >> > multiple millisecond sleeps, which visibly degrade user experience.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In general, I think that this works. Why not extend the solution to
> >> >> >> cover schedule_timeout_uninterruptible() in __read_swap_cache_async()
> >> >> >> too? We can call wake_up() when we clear SWAP_HAS_CACHE. To avoid
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hi Ying,
> >> >> > Thanks for your comments.
> >> >> > I feel extending the solution to __read_swap_cache_async() should be done
> >> >> > in a separate patch. On phones, I've never encountered any issues reported
> >> >> > on that path, so it might be better suited for an optimization rather than a
> >> >> > hotfix?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes. It's fine to do that in another patch as optimization.
> >> >
> >> > Ok. I'll prepare a separate patch for optimizing that path.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> overhead to call wake_up() when there's no task waiting, we can use an
> >> >> >> atomic to count waiting tasks.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm not sure it's worth adding the complexity, as wake_up() on an empty
> >> >> > waitqueue should have a very low cost on its own?
> >> >>
> >> >> wake_up() needs to call spin_lock_irqsave() unconditionally on a global
> >> >> shared lock. On systems with many CPUs (such servers), this may cause
> >> >> severe lock contention. Even the cache ping-pong may hurt performance
> >> >> much.
> >> >
> >> > I understand that cache synchronization was a significant issue before
> >> > qspinlock, but it seems to be less of a concern after its implementation.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, qspinlock cannot eliminate cache ping-pong issue, as
> >> discussed in the following thread.
> >>
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220510192708.GQ76023@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> >>
> >> > However, using a global atomic variable would still trigger cache broadcasts,
> >> > correct?
> >>
> >> We can only change the atomic variable to non-zero when
> >> swapcache_prepare() returns non-zero, and call wake_up() when the atomic
> >> variable is non-zero. Because swapcache_prepare() returns 0 most times,
> >> the atomic variable is 0 most times. If we don't change the value of
> >> atomic variable, cache ping-pong will not be triggered.
> >
> > yes. this can be implemented by adding another atomic variable.
>
> Just realized that we don't need another atomic variable for this, just
> use waitqueue_active() before wake_up() should be enough.
>
> >>
> >> Hi, Kairui,
> >>
> >> Do you have some test cases to test parallel zram swap-in? If so, that
> >> can be used to verify whether cache ping-pong is an issue and whether it
> >> can be fixed via a global atomic variable.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, Kairui please run a test on your machine with lots of cores before
> > and after adding a global atomic variable as suggested by Ying. I am
> > sorry I don't have a server machine.
> >
> > if it turns out you find cache ping-pong can be an issue, another
> > approach would be a waitqueue hash:
>
> Yes. waitqueue hash may help reduce lock contention. And, we can have
> both waitqueue_active() and waitqueue hash if necessary. As the first
> step, waitqueue_active() appears simpler.
Interesting. Just take a look at the waitqueue_active(), it requires
smp_mb() if using without holding the lock.
Quote from the comment of waitqueue_active():
* Also note that this 'optimization' trades a spin_lock() for an smp_mb(),
* which (when the lock is uncontended) are of roughly equal cost.
Chris
>
> > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > index 2366578015ad..aae0e532d8b6 100644
> > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > @@ -4192,6 +4192,23 @@ static struct folio *alloc_swap_folio(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > }
> > #endif /* CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE */
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Alleviating the 'thundering herd' phenomenon using a waitqueue hash
> > + * when multiple do_swap_page() operations occur simultaneously.
> > + */
> > +#define SWAPCACHE_WAIT_TABLE_BITS 5
> > +#define SWAPCACHE_WAIT_TABLE_SIZE (1 << SWAPCACHE_WAIT_TABLE_BITS)
> > +static wait_queue_head_t swapcache_wqs[SWAPCACHE_WAIT_TABLE_SIZE];
> > +
> > +static int __init swapcache_wqs_init(void)
> > +{
> > + for (int i = 0; i < SWAPCACHE_WAIT_TABLE_SIZE; i++)
> > + init_waitqueue_head(&swapcache_wqs[i]);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +late_initcall(swapcache_wqs_init);
> > +
> > /*
> > * We enter with non-exclusive mmap_lock (to exclude vma changes,
> > * but allow concurrent faults), and pte mapped but not yet locked.
> > @@ -4204,6 +4221,8 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > {
> > struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
> > struct folio *swapcache, *folio = NULL;
> > + DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current);
> > + wait_queue_head_t *swapcache_wq;
> > struct page *page;
> > struct swap_info_struct *si = NULL;
> > rmap_t rmap_flags = RMAP_NONE;
> > @@ -4297,12 +4316,16 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > * undetectable as pte_same() returns true due
> > * to entry reuse.
> > */
> > + swapcache_wq = &swapcache_wqs[hash_long(vmf->address & PMD_MASK,
> > + SWAPCACHE_WAIT_TABLE_BITS)];
> > if (swapcache_prepare(entry, nr_pages)) {
> > /*
> > * Relax a bit to prevent rapid
> > * repeated page faults.
> > */
> > + add_wait_queue(swapcache_wq, &wait);
> > schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
> > + remove_wait_queue(swapcache_wq, &wait);
> > goto out_page;
> > }
> > need_clear_cache = true;
> > @@ -4609,8 +4632,10 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > pte_unmap_unlock(vmf->pte, vmf->ptl);
> > out:
> > /* Clear the swap cache pin for direct swapin after PTL unlock */
> > - if (need_clear_cache)
> > + if (need_clear_cache) {
> > swapcache_clear(si, entry, nr_pages);
> > + wake_up(swapcache_wq);
> > + }
> > if (si)
> > put_swap_device(si);
> > return ret;
> > @@ -4625,8 +4650,10 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > folio_unlock(swapcache);
> > folio_put(swapcache);
> > }
> > - if (need_clear_cache)
> > + if (need_clear_cache) {
> > swapcache_clear(si, entry, nr_pages);
> > + wake_up(swapcache_wq);
> > + }
> > if (si)
> > put_swap_device(si);
> > return ret;
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
