lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -V3] swap: Reduce lock contention on swap cache from swap slots allocation
Date
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com> writes:

> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 08:26:48AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
>> diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
>> index 423c234aca15..0abd93d2a4fc 100644
>> --- a/mm/swapfile.c
>> +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
>> @@ -615,7 +615,8 @@ static bool scan_swap_map_try_ssd_cluster(struct swap_info_struct *si,
>> * discarding, do discard now and reclaim them
>> */
>> swap_do_scheduled_discard(si);
>> - *scan_base = *offset = si->cluster_next;
>> + *scan_base = this_cpu_read(*si->cluster_next_cpu);
>> + *offset = *scan_base;
>> goto new_cluster;
>
> Why is this done? As far as I can tell, the values always get overwritten at
> the end of the function with tmp and tmp isn't derived from them. Seems
> ebc2a1a69111 moved some logic that used to make sense but doesn't have any
> effect now.

If we fail to allocate from cluster, "scan_base" and "offset" will not
be overridden. And "cluster_next" or "cluster_next_cpu" may be changed
in swap_do_scheduled_discard(), because the lock is released and
re-acquired there.

The code may not have much value. And you may think that it's better to
remove it. But that should be in another patch.

>> } else
>> return false;
>> @@ -721,6 +722,34 @@ static void swap_range_free(struct swap_info_struct *si, unsigned long offset,
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +static void set_cluster_next(struct swap_info_struct *si, unsigned long next)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long prev;
>> +
>> + if (!(si->flags & SWP_SOLIDSTATE)) {
>> + si->cluster_next = next;
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + prev = this_cpu_read(*si->cluster_next_cpu);
>> + /*
>> + * Cross the swap address space size aligned trunk, choose
>> + * another trunk randomly to avoid lock contention on swap
>> + * address space if possible.
>> + */
>> + if ((prev >> SWAP_ADDRESS_SPACE_SHIFT) !=
>> + (next >> SWAP_ADDRESS_SPACE_SHIFT)) {
>> + /* No free swap slots available */
>> + if (si->highest_bit <= si->lowest_bit)
>> + return;
>> + next = si->lowest_bit +
>> + prandom_u32_max(si->highest_bit - si->lowest_bit + 1);
>> + next = ALIGN(next, SWAP_ADDRESS_SPACE_PAGES);
>> + next = max_t(unsigned int, next, si->lowest_bit);
>
> next is always greater than lowest_bit because it's aligned up. I think the
> intent of the max_t line is to handle when next is aligned outside the valid
> range, so it'd have to be ALIGN_DOWN instead?

Oops. I misunderstood "ALIGN()" here. Yes. we should use ALIGN_DOWN()
instead. Thanks for pointing this out!

>
> These aside, patch looks good to me.

Thanks for your review! It really help me to improve the quality of the
patch. Can I add your "Reviewed-by" in the next version?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-28 07:32    [W:0.061 / U:7.876 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site