Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: swap: add nr argument in swapcache_prepare and swapcache_clear to support large folios

From: Barry Song
Date: Wed Jul 31 2024 - 06:23:32 EST

Next message: Thomas Gleixner: "[PATCH] tick/broadcast: Move per CPU pointer access into the atomic section"
Previous message: Yu Liao: "[PATCH] tick/broadcast: Fix smp_processor_id()-in-preemptible warnings"
In reply to: Huang, Ying: "Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: swap: add nr argument in swapcache_prepare and swapcache_clear to support large folios"
Next in thread: Huang, Ying: "Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: swap: add nr argument in swapcache_prepare and swapcache_clear to support large folios"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 4:28 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 4:14 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, Barry,
> >>
> >> Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >> > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
> >> >
> >> > Right now, swapcache_prepare() and swapcache_clear() supports one entry
> >> > only, to support large folios, we need to handle multiple swap entries.
> >> >
> >> > To optimize stack usage, we iterate twice in __swap_duplicate(): the
> >> > first time to verify that all entries are valid, and the second time
> >> > to apply the modifications to the entries.
> >> >
> >> > Currently, we're using nr=1 for the existing users.
> >> >
> >> > Reviewed-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
> >> > ---
> >> > include/linux/swap.h | 4 +-
> >> > mm/memory.c | 6 +--
> >> > mm/swap.h | 5 ++-
> >> > mm/swap_state.c | 2 +-
> >> > mm/swapfile.c | 101 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> >> > 5 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
> >> > index ba7ea95d1c57..5b920fa2315b 100644
> >> > --- a/include/linux/swap.h
> >> > +++ b/include/linux/swap.h
> >> > @@ -480,7 +480,7 @@ extern int get_swap_pages(int n, swp_entry_t swp_entries[], int order);
> >> > extern int add_swap_count_continuation(swp_entry_t, gfp_t);
> >> > extern void swap_shmem_alloc(swp_entry_t);
> >> > extern int swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t);
> >> > -extern int swapcache_prepare(swp_entry_t);
> >> > +extern int swapcache_prepare(swp_entry_t entry, int nr);
> >> > extern void swap_free_nr(swp_entry_t entry, int nr_pages);
> >> > extern void swapcache_free_entries(swp_entry_t *entries, int n);
> >> > extern void free_swap_and_cache_nr(swp_entry_t entry, int nr);
> >> > @@ -554,7 +554,7 @@ static inline int swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t swp)
> >> > return 0;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > -static inline int swapcache_prepare(swp_entry_t swp)
> >> > +static inline int swapcache_prepare(swp_entry_t swp, int nr)
> >> > {
> >> > return 0;
> >> > }
> >> > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> >> > index 833d2cad6eb2..b8675617a5e3 100644
> >> > --- a/mm/memory.c
> >> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> >> > @@ -4081,7 +4081,7 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> >> > * reusing the same entry. It's undetectable as
> >> > * pte_same() returns true due to entry reuse.
> >> > */
> >> > - if (swapcache_prepare(entry)) {
> >> > + if (swapcache_prepare(entry, 1)) {
> >> > /* Relax a bit to prevent rapid repeated page faults */
> >> > schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
> >> > goto out;
> >> > @@ -4387,7 +4387,7 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> >> > out:
> >> > /* Clear the swap cache pin for direct swapin after PTL unlock */
> >> > if (need_clear_cache)
> >> > - swapcache_clear(si, entry);
> >> > + swapcache_clear(si, entry, 1);
> >> > if (si)
> >> > put_swap_device(si);
> >> > return ret;
> >> > @@ -4403,7 +4403,7 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> >> > folio_put(swapcache);
> >> > }
> >> > if (need_clear_cache)
> >> > - swapcache_clear(si, entry);
> >> > + swapcache_clear(si, entry, 1);
> >> > if (si)
> >> > put_swap_device(si);
> >> > return ret;
> >> > diff --git a/mm/swap.h b/mm/swap.h
> >> > index baa1fa946b34..7c6330561d84 100644
> >> > --- a/mm/swap.h
> >> > +++ b/mm/swap.h
> >> > @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ void __delete_from_swap_cache(struct folio *folio,
> >> > void delete_from_swap_cache(struct folio *folio);
> >> > void clear_shadow_from_swap_cache(int type, unsigned long begin,
> >> > unsigned long end);
> >> > -void swapcache_clear(struct swap_info_struct *si, swp_entry_t entry);
> >> > +void swapcache_clear(struct swap_info_struct *si, swp_entry_t entry, int nr);
> >> > struct folio *swap_cache_get_folio(swp_entry_t entry,
> >> > struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr);
> >> > struct folio *filemap_get_incore_folio(struct address_space *mapping,
> >> > @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ static inline int swap_writepage(struct page *p, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> >> > return 0;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > -static inline void swapcache_clear(struct swap_info_struct *si, swp_entry_t entry)
> >> > +static inline void swapcache_clear(struct swap_info_struct *si, swp_entry_t entry, int nr)
> >> > {
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > @@ -172,4 +172,5 @@ static inline unsigned int folio_swap_flags(struct folio *folio)
> >> > return 0;
> >> > }
> >> > #endif /* CONFIG_SWAP */
> >> > +
> >>
> >> NITPICK: Is it necessary to add a blank line here? But I don't think a
> >> new version is necessary if this is the only change needed.
> >
> > No need to add a blank line; it was probably a mistake I made in Vim.
> >
> >>
> >> > #endif /* _MM_SWAP_H */
> >> > diff --git a/mm/swap_state.c b/mm/swap_state.c
> >> > index a1726e49a5eb..b06f2a054f5a 100644
> >> > --- a/mm/swap_state.c
> >> > +++ b/mm/swap_state.c
> >> > @@ -477,7 +477,7 @@ struct folio *__read_swap_cache_async(swp_entry_t entry, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> >> > /*
> >> > * Swap entry may have been freed since our caller observed it.
> >> > */
> >> > - err = swapcache_prepare(entry);
> >> > + err = swapcache_prepare(entry, 1);
> >> > if (!err)
> >> > break;
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
> >> > index 5f73a8553371..757d38a86f56 100644
> >> > --- a/mm/swapfile.c
> >> > +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
> >> > @@ -3363,7 +3363,7 @@ void si_swapinfo(struct sysinfo *val)
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > /*
> >> > - * Verify that a swap entry is valid and increment its swap map count.
> >> > + * Verify that nr swap entries are valid and increment their swap map counts.
> >> > *
> >> > * Returns error code in following case.
> >> > * - success -> 0
> >> > @@ -3373,60 +3373,77 @@ void si_swapinfo(struct sysinfo *val)
> >> > * - swap-cache reference is requested but the entry is not used. -> ENOENT
> >> > * - swap-mapped reference requested but needs continued swap count. -> ENOMEM
> >> > */
> >> > -static int __swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry, unsigned char usage)
> >> > +static int __swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry, unsigned char usage, int nr)
> >> > {
> >> > struct swap_info_struct *p;
> >> > struct swap_cluster_info *ci;
> >> > unsigned long offset;
> >> > unsigned char count;
> >> > unsigned char has_cache;
> >> > - int err;
> >> > + int err, i;
> >> >
> >> > p = swp_swap_info(entry);
> >> >
> >> > offset = swp_offset(entry);
> >> > + VM_WARN_ON(nr > SWAPFILE_CLUSTER - offset % SWAPFILE_CLUSTER);
> >> > ci = lock_cluster_or_swap_info(p, offset);
> >> >
> >> > - count = p->swap_map[offset];
> >> > + err = 0;
> >> > + for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
> >> > + count = p->swap_map[offset + i];
> >> >
> >> > - /*
> >> > - * swapin_readahead() doesn't check if a swap entry is valid, so the
> >> > - * swap entry could be SWAP_MAP_BAD. Check here with lock held.
> >> > - */
> >> > - if (unlikely(swap_count(count) == SWAP_MAP_BAD)) {
> >> > - err = -ENOENT;
> >> > - goto unlock_out;
> >> > - }
> >> > + /*
> >> > + * swapin_readahead() doesn't check if a swap entry is valid, so the
> >> > + * swap entry could be SWAP_MAP_BAD. Check here with lock held.
> >> > + */
> >> > + if (unlikely(swap_count(count) == SWAP_MAP_BAD)) {
> >> > + err = -ENOENT;
> >> > + goto unlock_out;
> >> > + }
> >> >
> >> > - has_cache = count & SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
> >> > - count &= ~SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
> >> > - err = 0;
> >> > + has_cache = count & SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
> >> > + count &= ~SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
> >> >
> >> > - if (usage == SWAP_HAS_CACHE) {
> >> > + if (usage == SWAP_HAS_CACHE) {
> >> > + /* set SWAP_HAS_CACHE if there is no cache and entry is used */
> >> > + if (!has_cache && count)
> >> > + continue;
> >> > + else if (has_cache) /* someone else added cache */
> >> > + err = -EEXIST;
> >> > + else /* no users remaining */
> >> > + err = -ENOENT;
> >> >
> >> > - /* set SWAP_HAS_CACHE if there is no cache and entry is used */
> >> > - if (!has_cache && count)
> >> > - has_cache = SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
> >> > - else if (has_cache) /* someone else added cache */
> >> > - err = -EEXIST;
> >> > - else /* no users remaining */
> >> > - err = -ENOENT;
> >> > + } else if (count || has_cache) {
> >> >
> >> > - } else if (count || has_cache) {
> >> > + if ((count & ~COUNT_CONTINUED) < SWAP_MAP_MAX)
> >> > + continue;
> >> > + else if ((count & ~COUNT_CONTINUED) > SWAP_MAP_MAX)
> >> > + err = -EINVAL;
> >> > + else if (swap_count_continued(p, offset + i, count))
> >> > + continue;
> >>
> >> IIUC, this will make the change to swap map directly instead of
> >> verification. If the verification failed for some entry later, the
> >> count will be wrong? Or I missed something?
> >
> > To avoid using a bitmap or a larger stack, we actually verify during
> > the first iteration.
> > This ensures that by the second iteration, we can safely commit the
> > modification.
> >
> > I actually put some words in the changelog :-)
> >
> > To optimize stack usage, we iterate twice in __swap_duplicate(): the
> > first time to verify that all entries are valid, and the second time
> > to apply the modifications to the entries.
>
> Yes, I have seen it and I think that it is a good strategy.
>
> But, IIUC, swap_count_continued() will change the higher bits of the
> swap_map instead of verifying. Or, my understanding is wrong?
>

Ying, your understanding is 100% correct. but the code also has nothing
broken. we didn't extend swap_duplicate() to have argument nr,
so all users which can set usage=1 will definitely have nr=1.

int swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry)
{
int err = 0;

while (!err && __swap_duplicate(entry, 1, 1) == -ENOMEM)
err = add_swap_count_continuation(entry, GFP_ATOMIC);
return err;
}

Maybe I can add a VM_WARN_ON to warn those people who might
want to extend swap_duplicate()? in that case, things could be quite
tricky.

--- a/mm/swapfile.c
+++ b/mm/swapfile.c
@@ -3386,6 +3386,7 @@ static int __swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry,
unsigned char usage, int nr)

offset = swp_offset(entry);
VM_WARN_ON(nr > SWAPFILE_CLUSTER - offset % SWAPFILE_CLUSTER);
+ VM_WARN_ON(usage == 1 && nr > 1);
ci = lock_cluster_or_swap_info(p, offset);

err = 0;

> --
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
>
> >>
> >> > + else
> >> > + err = -ENOMEM;
> >> > + } else
> >> > + err = -ENOENT; /* unused swap entry */
> >> >
> >> > - if ((count & ~COUNT_CONTINUED) < SWAP_MAP_MAX)
> >> > + if (err)
> >> > + goto unlock_out;
> >> > + }
> >> > +
> >> > + for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
> >> > + count = p->swap_map[offset + i];
> >> > + has_cache = count & SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
> >> > + count &= ~SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
> >> > +
> >> > + if (usage == SWAP_HAS_CACHE)
> >> > + has_cache = SWAP_HAS_CACHE;
> >> > + else if ((count & ~COUNT_CONTINUED) < SWAP_MAP_MAX)
> >> > count += usage;
> >> > - else if ((count & ~COUNT_CONTINUED) > SWAP_MAP_MAX)
> >> > - err = -EINVAL;
> >> > - else if (swap_count_continued(p, offset, count))
> >> > - count = COUNT_CONTINUED;
> >> > else
> >> > - err = -ENOMEM;
> >> > - } else
> >> > - err = -ENOENT; /* unused swap entry */
> >> > + count = COUNT_CONTINUED;
> >> >
> >> > - if (!err)
> >> > - WRITE_ONCE(p->swap_map[offset], count | has_cache);
> >> > + WRITE_ONCE(p->swap_map[offset + i], count | has_cache);
> >> > + }
> >> >
> >> > unlock_out:
> >> > unlock_cluster_or_swap_info(p, ci);
> >> > @@ -3439,7 +3456,7 @@ static int __swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry, unsigned char usage)
> >> > */
> >> > void swap_shmem_alloc(swp_entry_t entry)
> >> > {
> >> > - __swap_duplicate(entry, SWAP_MAP_SHMEM);
> >> > + __swap_duplicate(entry, SWAP_MAP_SHMEM, 1);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > /*
> >> > @@ -3453,29 +3470,29 @@ int swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry)
> >> > {
> >> > int err = 0;
> >> >
> >> > - while (!err && __swap_duplicate(entry, 1) == -ENOMEM)
> >> > + while (!err && __swap_duplicate(entry, 1, 1) == -ENOMEM)
> >> > err = add_swap_count_continuation(entry, GFP_ATOMIC);
> >> > return err;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > /*
> >> > - * @entry: swap entry for which we allocate swap cache.
> >> > + * @entry: first swap entry from which we allocate nr swap cache.
> >> > *
> >> > - * Called when allocating swap cache for existing swap entry,
> >> > + * Called when allocating swap cache for existing swap entries,
> >> > * This can return error codes. Returns 0 at success.
> >> > * -EEXIST means there is a swap cache.
> >> > * Note: return code is different from swap_duplicate().
> >> > */
> >> > -int swapcache_prepare(swp_entry_t entry)
> >> > +int swapcache_prepare(swp_entry_t entry, int nr)
> >> > {
> >> > - return __swap_duplicate(entry, SWAP_HAS_CACHE);
> >> > + return __swap_duplicate(entry, SWAP_HAS_CACHE, nr);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > -void swapcache_clear(struct swap_info_struct *si, swp_entry_t entry)
> >> > +void swapcache_clear(struct swap_info_struct *si, swp_entry_t entry, int nr)
> >> > {
> >> > unsigned long offset = swp_offset(entry);
> >> >
> >> > - cluster_swap_free_nr(si, offset, 1, SWAP_HAS_CACHE);
> >> > + cluster_swap_free_nr(si, offset, nr, SWAP_HAS_CACHE);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > struct swap_info_struct *swp_swap_info(swp_entry_t entry)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Huang, Ying
> >
> > Thanks
> > Barry

Next message: Thomas Gleixner: "[PATCH] tick/broadcast: Move per CPU pointer access into the atomic section"
Previous message: Yu Liao: "[PATCH] tick/broadcast: Fix smp_processor_id()-in-preemptible warnings"
In reply to: Huang, Ying: "Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: swap: add nr argument in swapcache_prepare and swapcache_clear to support large folios"
Next in thread: Huang, Ying: "Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: swap: add nr argument in swapcache_prepare and swapcache_clear to support large folios"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]