Re: swap on eMMC and other flash

[Minchan Kim]

On 04/17/2012 06:12 AM, Stephan Uphoff wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Arnd Bergmann<arnd@xxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > On Monday 16 April 2012, Stephan Uphoff wrote:
> > > opportunity to plant a few ideas.
> > >
> > > In contrast to rotational disks read/write operation overhead and
> > > costs are not symmetric.
> > > While random reads are much faster on flash - the number of write
> > > operations is limited by wearout and garbage collection overhead.
> > > To further improve swapping on eMMC or similar flash media I believe
> > > that the following issues need to be addressed:
> > >
> > > 1) Limit average write bandwidth to eMMC to a configurable level to
> > > guarantee a minimum device lifetime
> > > 2) Aim for a low write amplification factor to maximize useable write bandwidth
> > > 3) Strongly favor read over write operations
> > >
> > > Lowering write amplification (2) has been discussed in this email
> > > thread - and the only observation I would like to add is that
> > > over-provisioning the internal swap space compared to the exported
> > > swap space significantly can guarantee a lower write amplification
> > > factor with the indirection and GC techniques discussed.
> >
> > Yes, good point.
> >
> > > I believe the swap functionality is currently optimized for storage
> > > media where read and write costs are nearly identical.
> > > As this is not the case on flash I propose splitting the anonymous
> > > inactive queue (at least conceptually) - keeping clean anonymous pages
> > > with swap slots on a separate queue as the cost of swapping them
> > > out/in is only an inexpensive read operation. A variable similar to
> > > swapiness (or a more dynamic algorithmn) could determine the
> > > preference for swapping out clean pages or dirty pages. ( A similar
> > > argument could be made for splitting up the file inactive queue )
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand yet how this would be different from swappiness.
>
> As I see it swappiness determines the ratio for paging out file backed
> as compared to anonymous, swap backed pages.
> I would like to further be able to set the ratio for throwing away
> clean anonymous pages with swap slots ( that are easy to read back in)
> as compared to writing out dirty anonymous pages to swap.

We can apply the rule in file-lru list too and we already have 
ISOLATE_CLEAN mode to select victim pages in LRU list so it should work.

For selecting clean anon pages with swap slot, we need more looking.
Recent, Dan had a question about it and Hugh answered it.
Look at the http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=133462346928786&w=2

--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/