Re: [PATCH 6/6] shmem: add large folios support to the write path

From: Daniel Gomez
Date: Tue Sep 19 2023 - 09:27:33 EST

On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 11:55:34AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 1:00 AM Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 11:26:37AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 2:51 AM Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Add large folio support for shmem write path matching the same high
> > > > order preference mechanism used for iomap buffered IO path as used in
> > > > __filemap_get_folio().
> > > >
> > > > Use the __folio_get_max_order to get a hint for the order of the folio
> > > > based on file size which takes care of the mapping requirements.
> > > >
> > > > Swap does not support high order folios for now, so make it order 0 in
> > > > case swap is enabled.
> > >
> > > I didn't take a close look at the series, but I am not sure I
> > > understand the rationale here. Reclaim will split high order shmem
> > > folios anyway, right?
> >
> > For context, this is part of the enablement of large block sizes (LBS)
> > effort [1][2][3], so the assumption here is that the kernel will
> > reclaim memory with the same (large) block sizes that were written to
> > the device.
> >
> > I'll add more context in the V2.
> >
> > [1] https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=a80aab33-c981be05-a80b207c-000babff9b5d-b656d8860b04562f&q=1&e=46666acf-d70d-4e8d-8d00-b027808ae400&u=https%3A%2F%2Fkernelnewbies.org%2FKernelProjects%2Flarge-block-size
> > [2] https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=3f753ca2-5efe2994-3f74b7ed-000babff9b5d-e678f885471555e3&q=1&e=46666acf-d70d-4e8d-8d00-b027808ae400&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fspreadsheets%2Fd%2Fe%2F2PACX-1vS7sQfw90S00l2rfOKm83Jlg0px8KxMQE4HHp_DKRGbAGcAV-xu6LITHBEc4xzVh9wLH6WM2lR0cZS8%2Fpubhtml%23
> > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZQfbHloBUpDh+zCg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > >
> > > It seems like we only enable high order folios if the "noswap" mount
> > > option is used, which is fairly recent. I doubt it is widely used.
> >
> > For now, I skipped the swap path as it currently lacks support for
> > high order folios. But I'm currently looking into it as part of the LBS
> > effort (please check spreadsheet at [2] for that).
>
> Thanks for the context, but I am not sure I understand.
>
> IIUC we are skipping allocating large folios in shmem if swap is
> enabled in this patch. Swap does not support swapping out large folios
> as a whole (except THPs), but page reclaim will split those large
> folios and swap them out as order-0 pages anyway. So I am not sure I
> understand why we need to skip allocating large folios if swap is
> enabled.

I lifted noswap condition and retested it again on top of 230918 and
there is some regression. So, based on the results I guess the initial
requirement may be the way to go. But what do you think?

Here the logs:
* shmem-large-folios-swap: https://gitlab.com/-/snippets/3600360
* shmem-baseline-swap : https://gitlab.com/-/snippets/3600362

-Failures: generic/080 generic/126 generic/193 generic/633 generic/689
-Failed 5 of 730 tests
\ No newline at end of file
+Failures: generic/080 generic/103 generic/126 generic/193 generic/285 generic/436 generic/619 generic/633 generic/689
+Failed 9 of 730 tests
\ No newline at end of file
>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > mm/shmem.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
> > > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> > > > index adff74751065..26ca555b1669 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/shmem.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> > > > @@ -1683,13 +1683,19 @@ static struct folio *shmem_alloc_folio(gfp_t gfp,
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static struct folio *shmem_alloc_and_acct_folio(gfp_t gfp, struct inode *inode,
> > > > - pgoff_t index, bool huge, unsigned int *order)
> > > > + pgoff_t index, bool huge, unsigned int *order,
> > > > + struct shmem_sb_info *sbinfo)
> > > > {
> > > > struct shmem_inode_info *info = SHMEM_I(inode);
> > > > struct folio *folio;
> > > > int nr;
> > > > int err;
> > > >
> > > > + if (!sbinfo->noswap)
> > > > + *order = 0;
> > > > + else
> > > > + *order = (*order == 1) ? 0 : *order;
> > > > +
> > > > if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE))
> > > > huge = false;
> > > > nr = huge ? HPAGE_PMD_NR : 1U << *order;
> > > > @@ -2032,6 +2038,8 @@ static int shmem_get_folio_gfp(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + order = mapping_size_order(inode->i_mapping, index, len);
> > > > +
> > > > if (!shmem_is_huge(inode, index, false,
> > > > vma ? vma->vm_mm : NULL, vma ? vma->vm_flags : 0))
> > > > goto alloc_nohuge;
> > > > @@ -2039,11 +2047,11 @@ static int shmem_get_folio_gfp(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
> > > > huge_gfp = vma_thp_gfp_mask(vma);
> > > > huge_gfp = limit_gfp_mask(huge_gfp, gfp);
> > > > folio = shmem_alloc_and_acct_folio(huge_gfp, inode, index, true,
> > > > - &order);
> > > > + &order, sbinfo);
> > > > if (IS_ERR(folio)) {
> > > > alloc_nohuge:
> > > > folio = shmem_alloc_and_acct_folio(gfp, inode, index, false,
> > > > - &order);
> > > > + &order, sbinfo);
> > > > }
> > > > if (IS_ERR(folio)) {
> > > > int retry = 5;
> > > > @@ -2147,6 +2155,8 @@ static int shmem_get_folio_gfp(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
> > > > if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
> > > > folio_unlock(folio);
> > > > folio_put(folio);
> > > > + if (order > 0)
> > > > + order--;
> > > > goto alloc_nohuge;
> > > > }
> > > > unlock:
> > > > --
> > > > 2.39.2
> > > >