Re: [PATCH v3] zram: remove global tb_lock with fine grain lock

[Weijie Yang]

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 03:59:06PM +0800, Weijie Yang wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Hello Weijie,
>> >
>> > Thanks for resending.
>> > Below are mostly nitpicks.
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 04:34:44PM +0800, Weijie Yang wrote:
>> >> Currently, we use a rwlock tb_lock to protect concurrent access to
>> >> the whole zram meta table. However, according to the actual access model,
>> >> there is only a small chance for upper user to access the same table[index],
>> >> so the current lock granularity is too big.
>> >>
>> >> The idea of optimization is to change the lock granularity from whole
>> >> meta table to per table entry (table -> table[index]), so that we can
>> >> protect concurrent access to the same table[index], meanwhile allow
>> >> the maximum concurrency.
>> >> With this in mind, several kinds of locks which could be used as a
>> >> per-entry lock were tested and compared:
>> >>
>> >> Test environment:
>> >> x86-64 Intel Core2 Q8400, system memory 4GB, Ubuntu 12.04,
>> >> kernel v3.15.0-rc3 as base, zram with 4 max_comp_streams LZO.
>> >>
>> >> iozone test:
>> >> iozone -t 4 -R -r 16K -s 200M -I +Z
>> >> (1GB zram with ext4 filesystem, take the average of 10 tests, KB/s)
>> >>
>> >>       Test       base      CAS    spinlock    rwlock   bit_spinlock
>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>  Initial write  1381094   1425435   1422860   1423075   1421521
>> >>        Rewrite  1529479   1641199   1668762   1672855   1654910
>> >>           Read  8468009  11324979  11305569  11117273  10997202
>> >>        Re-read  8467476  11260914  11248059  11145336  10906486
>> >>   Reverse Read  6821393   8106334   8282174   8279195   8109186
>> >>    Stride read  7191093   8994306   9153982   8961224   9004434
>> >>    Random read  7156353   8957932   9167098   8980465   8940476
>> >> Mixed workload  4172747   5680814   5927825   5489578   5972253
>> >>   Random write  1483044   1605588   1594329   1600453   1596010
>> >>         Pwrite  1276644   1303108   1311612   1314228   1300960
>> >>          Pread  4324337   4632869   4618386   4457870   4500166
>> >>
>> >> To enhance the possibility of access the same table[index] concurrently,
>> >> set zram a small disksize(10MB) and let threads run with large loop count.
>> >>
>> >> fio test:
>> >> fio --bs=32k --randrepeat=1 --randseed=100 --refill_buffers
>> >> --scramble_buffers=1 --direct=1 --loops=3000 --numjobs=4
>> >> --filename=/dev/zram0 --name=seq-write --rw=write --stonewall
>> >> --name=seq-read --rw=read --stonewall --name=seq-readwrite
>> >> --rw=rw --stonewall --name=rand-readwrite --rw=randrw --stonewall
>> >> (10MB zram raw block device, take the average of 10 tests, KB/s)
>> >>
>> >>     Test     base     CAS    spinlock    rwlock  bit_spinlock
>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> seq-write   933789   999357   1003298    995961   1001958
>> >>  seq-read  5634130  6577930   6380861   6243912   6230006
>> >>    seq-rw  1405687  1638117   1640256   1633903   1634459
>> >>   rand-rw  1386119  1614664   1617211   1609267   1612471
>> >>
>> >> All the optimization methods show a higher performance than the base,
>> >> however, it is hard to say which method is the most appropriate.
>> >>
>> >> On the other hand, zram is mostly used on small embedded system, so we
>> >> don't want to increase any memory footprint.
>> >>
>> >> This patch pick the bit_spinlock method, pack object size and page_flag
>> >> into an unsigned long table.value, so as to not increase any memory
>> >> overhead on both 32-bit and 64-bit system.
>> >>
>> >> On the third hand, even though different kinds of locks have different
>> >> performances, we can ignore this difference, because:
>> >> if zram is used as zram swapfile, the swap subsystem can prevent concurrent
>> >> access to the same swapslot;
>> >> if zram is used as zram-blk for set up filesystem on it, the upper filesystem
>> >> and the page cache also prevent concurrent access of the same block mostly.
>> >> So we can ignore the different performances among locks.
>> >
>> > Nice description. :)
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Changes since v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/5/1
>> >>   - replace CAS method with bit_spinlock method
>> >>   - rename zram_test_flag() to zram_test_zero()
>> >>   - add some comments
>> >>
>> >> Changes since v2: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/15/113
>> >>   - change size type from int to size_t in zram_set_obj_size()
>> >>   - refactor zram_set_obj_size() to make it readable
>> >>   - add comments
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Weijie Yang <weijie.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> ---
>> >>  drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c |   89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>> >>  drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h |   22 +++++++---
>> >>  2 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
>> >> index 9849b52..166e882 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
>> >> @@ -179,23 +179,32 @@ static ssize_t comp_algorithm_store(struct device *dev,
>> >>       return len;
>> >>  }
>> >>
>> >> -/* flag operations needs meta->tb_lock */
>> >> -static int zram_test_flag(struct zram_meta *meta, u32 index,
>> >> -                     enum zram_pageflags flag)
>> >> +static int zram_test_zero(struct zram_meta *meta, u32 index)
>> >
>> > Why do you want to create specific function for zero?
>> > It would be one of usecase for various potential flags.
>> > Do you want to create new functions whenever we define new flag?
>> > Or something do you have a mind?
>> >
>>
>> As you see, this patch adds a new flag ZRAM_ACCESS, which is
>> accessed through different method from ZRAM_ZERO.
>> I think it is hard to use a general method to access all kinds of flags,
>> to eliminate some potential ambiguity or wrong usage, I use specific
>> function to access different flags.
>
> Although I am not against that, we can do it when it's really messy
> as another patch in future. I don't want to bloat patch size without
> the goal which is to enhance locking contention.

OK, let's focus on this patch's goal. I will restore it.

>>
>> >
>> >>  {
>> >> -     return meta->table[index].flags & BIT(flag);
>> >> +     return meta->table[index].value & BIT(ZRAM_ZERO);
>> >>  }
>> >>
>> >> -static void zram_set_flag(struct zram_meta *meta, u32 index,
>> >> -                     enum zram_pageflags flag)
>> >> +static void zram_set_zero(struct zram_meta *meta, u32 index)
>> >>  {
>> >> -     meta->table[index].flags |= BIT(flag);
>> >> +     meta->table[index].value |= BIT(ZRAM_ZERO);
>> >>  }
>> >>
>> >> -static void zram_clear_flag(struct zram_meta *meta, u32 index,
>> >> -                     enum zram_pageflags flag)
>> >> +static void zram_clear_zero(struct zram_meta *meta, u32 index)
>> >>  {
>> >> -     meta->table[index].flags &= ~BIT(flag);
>> >> +     meta->table[index].value &= ~BIT(ZRAM_ZERO);
>> >> +}
>> >> +
>> >> +static size_t zram_get_obj_size(struct zram_meta *meta, u32 index)
>> >> +{
>> >> +     return meta->table[index].value & (BIT(ZRAM_FLAG_SHIFT) - 1);
>> >> +}
>> >> +
>> >> +static void zram_set_obj_size(struct zram_meta *meta,
>> >> +                                     u32 index, size_t size)
>> >> +{
>> >> +     unsigned long flags = meta->table[index].value >> ZRAM_FLAG_SHIFT;
>> >> +
>> >> +     meta->table[index].value = (flags << ZRAM_FLAG_SHIFT) | size;
>> >>  }
>> >>
>> >>  static inline int is_partial_io(struct bio_vec *bvec)
>> >> @@ -255,7 +264,6 @@ static struct zram_meta *zram_meta_alloc(u64 disksize)
>> >>               goto free_table;
>> >>       }
>> >>
>> >> -     rwlock_init(&meta->tb_lock);
>> >>       return meta;
>> >>
>> >>  free_table:
>> >> @@ -304,19 +312,24 @@ static void handle_zero_page(struct bio_vec *bvec)
>> >>       flush_dcache_page(page);
>> >>  }
>> >>
>> >> -/* NOTE: caller should hold meta->tb_lock with write-side */
>> >> +/*
>> >> + * To protect concurrent access to the same index entry,
>> >> + * caller should hold this table index entry's bit_spinlock to
>> >> + * indicate this index entry is accessing.
>> >> + */
>> >>  static void zram_free_page(struct zram *zram, size_t index)
>> >>  {
>> >>       struct zram_meta *meta = zram->meta;
>> >>       unsigned long handle = meta->table[index].handle;
>> >> +     size_t size;
>> >>
>> >>       if (unlikely(!handle)) {
>> >>               /*
>> >>                * No memory is allocated for zero filled pages.
>> >>                * Simply clear zero page flag.
>> >>                */
>> >> -             if (zram_test_flag(meta, index, ZRAM_ZERO)) {
>> >> -                     zram_clear_flag(meta, index, ZRAM_ZERO);
>> >> +             if (zram_test_zero(meta, index)) {
>> >> +                     zram_clear_zero(meta, index);
>> >>                       atomic64_dec(&zram->stats.zero_pages);
>> >>               }
>> >>               return;
>> >> @@ -324,27 +337,28 @@ static void zram_free_page(struct zram *zram, size_t index)
>> >>
>> >>       zs_free(meta->mem_pool, handle);
>> >>
>> >> -     atomic64_sub(meta->table[index].size, &zram->stats.compr_data_size);
>> >> +     size = zram_get_obj_size(meta, index);
>> >> +     atomic64_sub(size, &zram->stats.compr_data_size);
>> >>       atomic64_dec(&zram->stats.pages_stored);
>> >>
>> >>       meta->table[index].handle = 0;
>> >> -     meta->table[index].size = 0;
>> >> +     zram_set_obj_size(meta, index, 0);
>> >>  }
>> >>
>> >>  static int zram_decompress_page(struct zram *zram, char *mem, u32 index)
>> >>  {
>> >> -     int ret = 0;
>> >
>> > Unnecessary change.
>>
>> I want to compact the memory usage on stack, so I put ret and size variables
>> together. On 64-bit system, it will be helpful.
>
> Please, do it as another patchset if you think it's worthy.

I will send a specific patch on this topic.

>>
>> >>       unsigned char *cmem;
>> >>       struct zram_meta *meta = zram->meta;
>> >>       unsigned long handle;
>> >> -     u16 size;
>> >
>> > I'm not sure it's good idea to use size_t instead of u16 because we apparently
>> > have a limitation to express range of size due to packing it into unsigned long
>> > so u16 is more clear to show the limiation and someone might find a problem
>> > more easily in future if we break something subtle.
>> >
>> >> +     size_t size;
>> >> +     int ret = 0;
>> >>
>> >> -     read_lock(&meta->tb_lock);
>> >> +     bit_spin_lock(ZRAM_ACCESS, &meta->table[index].value);
>> >>       handle = meta->table[index].handle;
>> >> -     size = meta->table[index].size;
>> >> +     size = zram_get_obj_size(meta, index);
>> >>
>> >> -     if (!handle || zram_test_flag(meta, index, ZRAM_ZERO)) {
>> >> -             read_unlock(&meta->tb_lock);
>> >> +     if (!handle || zram_test_zero(meta, index)) {
>> >> +             bit_spin_unlock(ZRAM_ACCESS, &meta->table[index].value);
>> >>               clear_page(mem);
>> >>               return 0;
>> >>       }
>> >> @@ -355,7 +369,7 @@ static int zram_decompress_page(struct zram *zram, char *mem, u32 index)
>> >>       else
>> >>               ret = zcomp_decompress(zram->comp, cmem, size, mem);
>> >>       zs_unmap_object(meta->mem_pool, handle);
>> >> -     read_unlock(&meta->tb_lock);
>> >> +     bit_spin_unlock(ZRAM_ACCESS, &meta->table[index].value);
>> >>
>> >>       /* Should NEVER happen. Return bio error if it does. */
>> >>       if (unlikely(ret)) {
>> >> @@ -376,14 +390,14 @@ static int zram_bvec_read(struct zram *zram, struct bio_vec *bvec,
>> >>       struct zram_meta *meta = zram->meta;
>> >>       page = bvec->bv_page;
>> >>
>> >> -     read_lock(&meta->tb_lock);
>> >> +     bit_spin_lock(ZRAM_ACCESS, &meta->table[index].value);
>> >>       if (unlikely(!meta->table[index].handle) ||
>> >> -                     zram_test_flag(meta, index, ZRAM_ZERO)) {
>> >> -             read_unlock(&meta->tb_lock);
>> >> +                     zram_test_zero(meta, index)) {
>> >> +             bit_spin_unlock(ZRAM_ACCESS, &meta->table[index].value);
>> >>               handle_zero_page(bvec);
>> >>               return 0;
>> >>       }
>> >> -     read_unlock(&meta->tb_lock);
>> >> +     bit_spin_unlock(ZRAM_ACCESS, &meta->table[index].value);
>> >>
>> >>       if (is_partial_io(bvec))
>> >>               /* Use  a temporary buffer to decompress the page */
>> >> @@ -461,10 +475,10 @@ static int zram_bvec_write(struct zram *zram, struct bio_vec *bvec, u32 index,
>> >>       if (page_zero_filled(uncmem)) {
>> >>               kunmap_atomic(user_mem);
>> >>               /* Free memory associated with this sector now. */
>> >> -             write_lock(&zram->meta->tb_lock);
>> >> +             bit_spin_lock(ZRAM_ACCESS, &meta->table[index].value);
>> >>               zram_free_page(zram, index);
>> >> -             zram_set_flag(meta, index, ZRAM_ZERO);
>> >> -             write_unlock(&zram->meta->tb_lock);
>> >> +             zram_set_zero(meta, index);
>> >> +             bit_spin_unlock(ZRAM_ACCESS, &meta->table[index].value);
>> >>
>> >>               atomic64_inc(&zram->stats.zero_pages);
>> >>               ret = 0;
>> >> @@ -514,12 +528,12 @@ static int zram_bvec_write(struct zram *zram, struct bio_vec *bvec, u32 index,
>> >>        * Free memory associated with this sector
>> >>        * before overwriting unused sectors.
>> >>        */
>> >> -     write_lock(&zram->meta->tb_lock);
>> >> +     bit_spin_lock(ZRAM_ACCESS, &meta->table[index].value);
>> >>       zram_free_page(zram, index);
>> >>
>> >>       meta->table[index].handle = handle;
>> >> -     meta->table[index].size = clen;
>> >> -     write_unlock(&zram->meta->tb_lock);
>> >> +     zram_set_obj_size(meta, index, clen);
>> >> +     bit_spin_unlock(ZRAM_ACCESS, &meta->table[index].value);
>> >>
>> >>       /* Update stats */
>> >>       atomic64_add(clen, &zram->stats.compr_data_size);
>> >> @@ -560,6 +574,7 @@ static void zram_bio_discard(struct zram *zram, u32 index,
>> >>                            int offset, struct bio *bio)
>> >>  {
>> >>       size_t n = bio->bi_iter.bi_size;
>> >> +     struct zram_meta *meta = zram->meta;
>> >>
>> >>       /*
>> >>        * zram manages data in physical block size units. Because logical block
>> >> @@ -584,9 +599,9 @@ static void zram_bio_discard(struct zram *zram, u32 index,
>> >>                * Discard request can be large so the lock hold times could be
>> >>                * lengthy.  So take the lock once per page.
>> >>                */
>> >> -             write_lock(&zram->meta->tb_lock);
>> >> +             bit_spin_lock(ZRAM_ACCESS, &meta->table[index].value);
>> >>               zram_free_page(zram, index);
>> >> -             write_unlock(&zram->meta->tb_lock);
>> >> +             bit_spin_unlock(ZRAM_ACCESS, &meta->table[index].value);
>> >>               index++;
>> >>               n -= PAGE_SIZE;
>> >>       }
>> >> @@ -804,9 +819,9 @@ static void zram_slot_free_notify(struct block_device *bdev,
>> >>       zram = bdev->bd_disk->private_data;
>> >>       meta = zram->meta;
>> >>
>> >> -     write_lock(&meta->tb_lock);
>> >> +     bit_spin_lock(ZRAM_ACCESS, &meta->table[index].value);
>> >>       zram_free_page(zram, index);
>> >> -     write_unlock(&meta->tb_lock);
>> >> +     bit_spin_unlock(ZRAM_ACCESS, &meta->table[index].value);
>> >>       atomic64_inc(&zram->stats.notify_free);
>> >>  }
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h
>> >> index 7f21c14..71bc4ad 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h
>> >> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h
>> >> @@ -51,10 +51,22 @@ static const size_t max_zpage_size = PAGE_SIZE / 4 * 3;
>> >>  #define ZRAM_SECTOR_PER_LOGICAL_BLOCK        \
>> >>       (1 << (ZRAM_LOGICAL_BLOCK_SHIFT - SECTOR_SHIFT))
>> >>
>> >> -/* Flags for zram pages (table[page_no].flags) */
>> >> +/*
>> >> + * The lower ZRAM_FLAG_SHIFT bits of table.value is for
>> >> + * object size (excluding header), the higher bits is for
>> >> + * zram_pageflags. By this means, it won't increase any
>> >> + * memory overhead on both 32-bit and 64-bit system.
>> >
>> > Comment on "By this means, ~ 64 bit system" is unncessary because
>> > someone read this line but don't know history couldn't understand
>> > what's the old structure.
>>
>> I will remove it.
>>
>> >> + * zram is mostly used on small embedded system, so we
>> >> + * don't want to increase memory footprint. That is why
>> >> + * we pack size and flag into table.value.
>> >> + */
>> >
>> > IMHO, it would be more clear but not sure if native speakers look at. ;-)
>> >
>> > * zram is mainly used for memory efficiency so we want to keep memory
>> > * footprint small so we can squeeze size and flags into a field.
>> > * The lower ZRAM_FLAG_SHIFT bits is for object size (excluding header),
>> > * the higher bits is for zram_pageflags.
>> >
>>
>> That is a better comment.
>>
>> >> +#define ZRAM_FLAG_SHIFT 24
>> >
>> > Why is it 24? We have used for 16-bit for size.
>> > Do you think it's too small for size?
>>
>> The reason why I choose 24-bit and size_t is that when I checked the PAGE_SHIFT
>> on all kinds of architectures, I found on some architectures such as powerpc and
>> hexagon, PAGE_SHIFT would be 18 or 20, so I think 16-bit could be small to use.
>
> If it's a problem, could you do it as another patch? Because it's bug fix,
> not related to this patchset.

OK, I will send a specific patch on this.

Thank you very much for your review and suggestion.

> Thanks.
>
> --
> 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/