On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 6:53 AM Chris Li chrisl@kernel.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 6:58 PM Barry Song 21cnbao@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 8:43 AM Huang, Ying ying.huang@intel.com wrote:
Barry Song 21cnbao@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 7:43 AM Huang, Ying ying.huang@intel.com wrote:
Barry Song 21cnbao@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 3:43 PM Huang, Ying ying.huang@intel.com wrote: > > Hi, Barry, > > Barry Song 21cnbao@gmail.com writes: > > > From: Barry Song v-songbaohua@oppo.com > > > > 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@worktop.programming.kick...
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.
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:
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)];It is better to hash against the swap entry value rather than the fault address. Same swap entries can map to different parts of the page table. I am not sure this is triggerable in the SYNC_IO page fault path, hash against the swap entries is more obviously correct.
i am not convinced swap entry offset is a correct key here.
1. do_swap_page() is always for anon pages, there is no possibility for anon pages to have different mapped virtual address; shmem will never execute a different code path.
2. considering a mTHP swap-in case, the aligned virtual address is the only reliable value for hash. if we only consider small folios swap-in, it is fine to use swap entry value.
Chris
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;-- 2.34.1
-- Best Regards, Huang, Ying
Thanks Barry