Re: [PATCH v2] mm: swap: use fixed-size readahead during swapoff

From: Andrea Righi
Date: Thu Apr 16 2020 - 13:22:11 EST

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 08:41:39AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 09:32:47AM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:37:00AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> > Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> >
> >> > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 09:31:24AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> > >> Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 09:00:34PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> > >> >> Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> [snip]
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> > diff --git a/mm/swap_state.c b/mm/swap_state.c
> >> > >> >> > index ebed37bbf7a3..c71abc8df304 100644
> >> > >> >> > --- a/mm/swap_state.c
> >> > >> >> > +++ b/mm/swap_state.c
> >> > >> >> > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
> >> > >> >> > #include <linux/migrate.h>
> >> > >> >> > #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> >> > >> >> > #include <linux/swap_slots.h>
> >> > >> >> > +#include <linux/oom.h>
> >> > >> >> > #include <linux/huge_mm.h>
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> > #include <asm/pgtable.h>
> >> > >> >> > @@ -507,6 +508,14 @@ static unsigned long swapin_nr_pages(unsigned long offset)
> >> > >> >> > max_pages = 1 << READ_ONCE(page_cluster);
> >> > >> >> > if (max_pages <= 1)
> >> > >> >> > return 1;
> >> > >> >> > + /*
> >> > >> >> > + * If current task is using too much memory or swapoff is running
> >> > >> >> > + * simply use the max readahead size. Since we likely want to load a
> >> > >> >> > + * lot of pages back into memory, using a fixed-size max readhaead can
> >> > >> >> > + * give better performance in this case.
> >> > >> >> > + */
> >> > >> >> > + if (oom_task_origin(current))
> >> > >> >> > + return max_pages;
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> > hits = atomic_xchg(&swapin_readahead_hits, 0);
> >> > >> >> > pages = __swapin_nr_pages(prev_offset, offset, hits, max_pages,
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Thinks this again. If my understanding were correct, the accessing
> >> > >> >> pattern during swapoff is sequential, why swap readahead doesn't work?
> >> > >> >> If so, can you root cause that firstly?
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Theoretically if the pattern is sequential the current heuristic should
> >> > >> > already select a big readahead size, but apparently it's not doing that.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > I'll repeat my tests tracing the readahead size during swapoff to see
> >> > >> > exactly what's going on here.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I haven't verify it. It may be helpful to call lookup_swap_cache()
> >> > >> before swapin_readahead() in unuse_pte_range(). The theory behind it is
> >> > >> to update the swap readahead statistics via lookup_swap_cache().
> >> > >
> >> > > I did more tests trying to collect some useful information.
> >> > >
> >> > > In particular I've been focusing at tracing the distribution of the
> >> > > values returned by swapin_nr_pages() in different scenarios.
> >> > >
> >> > > To do so I made swapin_nr_pages() trace-able and I used the following
> >> > > bcc command to measure the distrubution of the returned values:
> >> > >
> >> > > # argdist-bpfcc -c -C 'r::swapin_nr_pages(unsigned long offset):unsigned long:$retval'
> >> > >
> >> > > I've collected this metric in the following scenarios:
> >> > > - 5.6 vanilla
> >> > > - 5.6 + lookup_swap_cache() before swapin_readahead() in
> >> > > unuse_pte_range()
> >> > > - 5.6 + atomic_inc(&swapin_readahead_hits) before swapin_readahead()
> >> > > in unuse_pte_range()
> >> > > - 5.6 + swapin_readahead_hits=last_readahead_pages (in the atomic way)
> >> > > before swapin_readahead() in unuse_pte_range()
> >> > >
> >> > > Each kernel has been tested both with swappiness=0 and swappiness=60.
> >> > > Results are pretty much identical changing the swappiness, so I'm just
> >> > > reporting the default case here (w/ swappiness=60).
> >> > >
> >> > > Result
> >> > > ======
> >> > >
> >> > > = swapoff performance (elapsed time) =
> >> > >
> >> > > vanilla 22.09s
> >> > > lookup_swap_cache() 23.87s
> >> > > hits++ 16.10s
> >> > > hits=last_ra_pages 8.81s
> >> > >
> >> > > = swapin_nr_pages() $retval distribution =
> >> > >
> >> > > 5.6 vanilla:
> >> > > r::swapin_nr_pages(unsigned long offset):unsigned long:$retval
> >> > > COUNT EVENT
> >> > > 36948 $retval = 8
> >> > > 44151 $retval = 4
> >> > > 49290 $retval = 1
> >> > > 527771 $retval = 2
> >> > >
> >> > > 5.6 lookup_swap_cache() before swapin_readahead():
> >> > > r::swapin_nr_pages(unsigned long offset):unsigned long:$retval
> >> > > COUNT EVENT
> >> > > 13093 $retval = 1
> >> > > 56703 $retval = 8
> >> > > 123067 $retval = 2
> >> > > 366118 $retval = 4
> >> > >
> >> > > 5.6 atomic_inc(&swapin_readahead_hits) before swapin_readahead():
> >> > > r::swapin_nr_pages(unsigned long offset):unsigned long:$retval
> >> > > COUNT EVENT
> >> > > 2589 $retval = 1
> >> > > 8016 $retval = 2
> >> > > 40021 $retval = 8
> >> > > 566038 $retval = 4
> >> > >
> >> > > 5.6 swapin_readahead_hits=last_readahead_pages before swapin_readahead():
> >> > > r::swapin_nr_pages(unsigned long offset):unsigned long:$retval
> >> > > COUNT EVENT
> >> > > 785 $retval = 2
> >> > > 1072 $retval = 1
> >> > > 21844 $retval = 4
> >> > > 644168 $retval = 8
> >> > >
> >> > > In the vanilla case, the readahead heuristic seems to choose 2 pages
> >> > > most of the time. This is because we are not properly considering the
> >> > > hits (hits are always 0 in the swapoff code path) and, as you correctly
> >> > > pointed out, we can fix this by calling lookup_swap_cache() in
> >> > > unuse_pte_range() before calling swapin_readahead().
> >> > >
> >> > > With this change the distribution of the readahead size moves more
> >> > > toward 4 pages, but we still have some 2s. That looks good, however it
> >> > > doesn't seem to speed up swapoff very much... maybe because calling
> >> > > lookup_swap_cache() introduces a small overhead? (still need to
> >> > > investigate about this theory).
> >> > >
> >> > > In the next test I've tried to always increment hits by 1 before calling
> >> > > swapin_readahead() in unuse_pte_range(). This is basically cheating,
> >> > > because I'm faking the hit ratio, forcing the heuristic to use a larger
> >> > > readahead size; in fact, the readahead size moves even more toward 4
> >> > > pages and swapoff performance are a little better now.
> >> > >
> >> > > Pushing even more the "cheating" I can pretend that the previous
> >> > > readahead was all hits (swapin_readahead_hits=last_readahead_pages), so
> >> > > I'm forcing the heuristic to move toward the max size and keep using it.
> >> > > The result here is pretty much identical to my fixed-size patch, because
> >> > > swapin_nr_pages() returns the max readahead size pretty much all the
> >> > > time during swapoff (8 pages or, more in general, vm.page-cluster).
> >> > >
> >> > > Personally I don't like very much forcing the heuristic in this way,
> >> > > it'd be nice if it would just work by accounting the proper hit ratio
> >> > > (so just by adding lookup_swap_cache() as you correctly suggested), but
> >> > > this solution doesn't seem to improve performance in reality. For this
> >> > > reason I still think we should consider the swapoff scenario like a
> >> > > special one and somehow bypass the readahead heuristic and always return
> >> > > the max readahead size.
> >> > >
> >> > > Looking at the hits of the previous step in the swapoff case just
> >> > > doesn't work, because we may have some misses, but they will become hits
> >> > > very soon, since we are reading all the swapped out pages back into
> >> > > memory. This is why using the max readahead size gives better
> >> > > swapoff performance.
> >> > >
> >> > > What do you think?
> >> >
> >> > >From your description, it appears that you are using cluster readahead
> >> > instead of vma readahead. Can you verify this via,
> >> >
> >> > # cat /sys/kernel/mm/swap/vma_ra_enabled
> >>
> >> # cat /sys/kernel/mm/swap/vma_ra_enabled
> >> true
> >>
> >> However, it's still using the cluster readahead because I'm using a
> >> swap file and nr_rotate_swap=1, so, according to the following, it's
> >> never using the vma readahead:
> >>
> >> static inline bool swap_use_vma_readahead(void)
> >> {
> >> return READ_ONCE(enable_vma_readahead) && !atomic_read(&nr_rotate_swap);
> >> }
> >>
> >> I'll investigate more on this, I think there's no reason to prevent the
> >> usage of vma readahead if the underlying device is non-rotational.
> >
> > Few more details about this.
> >
> > Even if I have vma_ra_enabled (in /sys/kernel/mm/swap/vma_ra_enabled) it
> > looks like my virtio_blk device is considered rotational by default:
> >
> > $ cat /sys/block/vda/queue/rotational
> > 1
> >
> > Therefore the vma readahead is not used. If I change this to
> > "rotational" then the vma readahead is used; this is confirmed by the
> > fact that swapin_nr_pages isn't called anymore:
> >
> > r::swapin_nr_pages(unsigned long offset):unsigned long:$retval
> > COUNT EVENT
> > 13 $retval = 1
> > 18 $retval = 2
> > 23 $retval = 4
> > 29 $retval = 8
> >
> > swapoff time: 16.44s
> >
> > In terms of swapoff performance vma readahead works better than the
> > vanilla cluster readahead (~21s), but the "improved" cluster readahead
> > (with lookup_swap_cache() in unuse_pte_range()) still gives slightly
> > better results (~12s).
>
> Thanks for testing. Can you check the return value of
> __swapin_nr_pages() to verify whether vma readahead works as expected?

This is the vanilla kernel w/ vma readahead enabled:

r::__swapin_nr_pages():unsigned int:$retval
COUNT EVENT
1286 $retval = 1
6516 $retval = 4
81252 $retval = 8
260815 $retval = 2

swapoff time: real 18.20

And this is the kernel with the lookup_swap_cache() patch and vma
readahead enabled:

r::__swapin_nr_pages():unsigned int:$retval
COUNT EVENT
321 $retval = 2
509 $retval = 1
3017 $retval = 4
124090 $retval = 8

swapoff time: 15.33s

So, vma readahead seems to work as expected and swapoff now is faster
also with vma readahead enabled.

-Andrea