On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 3:01 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Kairui Song <ryncsn@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 8:55 AM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 8:35 AM 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.
> >> >
> >> > Hi Andrew,
> >> > If there are no objections, can you please squash the below change? Oven
> >> > has already tested the change and the original issue was still fixed with
> >> > it. If you want me to send v2 instead, please let me know.
> >> >
> >> > From a5ca401da89f3b628c3a0147e54541d0968654b2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >> > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
> >> > Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 20:18:27 +0800
> >> > Subject: [PATCH] mm: wake_up only when swapcache_wq waitqueue is active
> >> >
> >> > wake_up() will acquire spinlock even waitqueue is empty. This might
> >> > involve cache sync overhead. Let's only call wake_up() when waitqueue
> >> > is active.
> >> >
> >> > Suggested-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
> >> > ---
> >> > mm/memory.c | 6 ++++--
> >> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> >> > index fe21bd3beff5..4adb2d0bcc7a 100644
> >> > --- a/mm/memory.c
> >> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> >> > @@ -4623,7 +4623,8 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> >> > /* Clear the swap cache pin for direct swapin after PTL unlock */
> >> > if (need_clear_cache) {
> >> > swapcache_clear(si, entry, nr_pages);
> >> > - wake_up(&swapcache_wq);
> >> > + if (waitqueue_active(&swapcache_wq))
> >> > + wake_up(&swapcache_wq);
> >> > }
> >> > if (si)
> >> > put_swap_device(si);
> >> > @@ -4641,7 +4642,8 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> >> > }
> >> > if (need_clear_cache) {
> >> > swapcache_clear(si, entry, nr_pages);
> >> > - wake_up(&swapcache_wq);
> >> > + if (waitqueue_active(&swapcache_wq))
> >> > + wake_up(&swapcache_wq);
> >> > }
> >> > if (si)
> >> > put_swap_device(si);
> >>
> >> Hi, Kairui,
> >>
> >> Do you have time to give this patch (combined with the previous patch
> >> from Barry) a test to check whether the overhead introduced in the
> >> previous patch has been eliminated?
> >
> > Hi Ying, Barry
> >
> > I did a rebase on mm tree and run more tests with the latest patch:
> >
> > Before the two patches:
> > make -j96 (64k): 33814.45 35061.25 35667.54 36618.30 37381.60 37678.75
> > make -j96: 20456.03 20460.36 20511.55 20584.76 20751.07 20780.79
> > make -j64:7490.83 7515.55 7535.30 7544.81 7564.77 7583.41
> >
> > After adding workqueue:
> > make -j96 (64k): 33190.60 35049.57 35732.01 36263.81 37154.05 37815.50
> > make -j96: 20373.27 20382.96 20428.78 20459.73 20534.59 20548.48
> > make -j64: 7469.18 7522.57 7527.38 7532.69 7543.36 7546.28
> >
> > After adding workqueue with workqueue_active() check:
> > make -j96 (64k): 33321.03 35039.68 35552.86 36474.95 37502.76 37549.04
> > make -j96: 20601.39 20639.08 20692.81 20693.91 20701.35 20740.71
> > make -j64: 7538.63 7542.27 7564.86 7567.36 7594.14 7600.96
> >
> > So I think it's just noise level performance change, it should be OK
> > in either way.
Thanks for Kairui's testing.
>
> Thanks for your test results. There should be bottlenecks in other
> places.
Exactly. I’d expect cache ping-pong to become noticeable only when
the spinlock is highly contended—such as when many threads
simultaneously follow the pattern below:
spin_lock
short-time operations
spin_unlock
But we’re likely dealing with a different pattern, as shown below:
long-time operations
spin_lock
short-time operations
spin_unlock
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
Thanks
Barry
