lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: swap: determine swap device by using page nid
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 03:49:21PM +0800, ying.huang@intel.com wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 16:33 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 10:36:54AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 1:12 AM Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 07:09:53PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > > > The swap devices are linked to per node priority lists, the swap device
> > > > > closer to the node has higher priority on that node's priority list.
> > > > > This is supposed to improve I/O latency, particularly for some fast
> > > > > devices. But the current code gets nid by calling numa_node_id() which
> > > > > actually returns the nid that the reclaimer is running on instead of the
> > > > > nid that the page belongs to.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Right.
> > > >
> > > > > Pass the page's nid dow to get_swap_pages() in order to pick up the
> > > > > right swap device. But it doesn't work for the swap slots cache which
> > > > > is per cpu. We could skip swap slots cache if the current node is not
> > > > > the page's node, but it may be overkilling. So keep using the current
> > > > > node's swap slots cache. The issue was found by visual code inspection
> > > > > so it is not sure how much improvement could be achieved due to lack of
> > > > > suitable testing device. But anyway the current code does violate the
> > > > > design.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I intentionally used the reclaimer's nid because I think when swapping
> > > > out to a device, it is faster when the device is on the same node as
> > > > the cpu.
> > >
> > > OK, the offline discussion with Huang Ying showed the design was to
> > > have page's nid in order to achieve better I/O performance (more
> > > noticeable on faster devices) since the reclaimer may be running on a
> > > different node from the reclaimed page.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, I think I can make a test case where the workload allocates all
> > > > its memory on the remote node and its workingset memory is larger then
> > > > the available memory so swap is triggered, then we can see which way
> > > > achieves better performance. Sounds reasonable to you?
> > >
> > > Yeah, definitely, thank you so much. I don't have a fast enough device
> > > by hand to show the difference right now. If you could get some data
> > > it would be perfect.
> > >
> >
> > Failed to find a test box that has two NVMe disks attached to different
> > nodes and since Shanghai is locked down right now, we couldn't install
> > another NVMe on the box so I figured it might be OK to test on a box that
> > has a single NVMe attached to node 0 like this:
> >
> > 1) restrict the test processes to run on node 0 and allocate on node 1;
> > 2) restrict the test processes to run on node 1 and allocate on node 0.
> >
> > In case 1), the reclaimer's node id is the same as the swap device's so
> > it's the same as current behaviour and in case 2), the page's node id is
> > the same as the swap device's so it's what your patch proposed.
> >
> > The test I used is vm-scalability/case-swap-w-rand:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wfg/vm-scalability.git/tree/case-swap-w-seq
> > which spawns $nr_task processes and each will mmap $size and then
> > randomly write to that area. I set nr_task=32 and $size=4G, so a total
> > of 128G memory will be needed and I used memory.limit_in_bytes to
> > restrict the available memory to 64G, to make sure swap is triggered.
> >
> > The reason why cgroup is used is to avoid waking up the per-node kswapd
> > which can trigger swapping with reclaimer/page/swap device all having the
> > same node id.
> >
> > And I don't see a measuable difference from the result:
> > case1(using reclaimer's node id) vm-scalability.throughput: 10574 KB/s
> > case2(using page's node id) vm-scalability.throughput: 10567 KB/s
> >
> > My interpretation of the result is, when reclaiming a remote page, it
> > doesn't matter much which swap device to use if the swap device is a IO
> > device.
> >
> > Later Ying reminded me we have test box that has optane installed on
> > different nodes so I also tested there: Icelake 2 sockets server with 2
> > optane installed on each node. I did the test there like this:
> > 1) restrict the test processes to run on node 0 and allocate on node 1
> >    and only swapon pmem0, which is the optane backed swap device on node 0;
> > 2) restrict the test processes to run on node 0 and allocate on node 1
> >    and only swapon pmem1, which is the optane backed swap device on node 1.
> >
> > So case 1) is current behaviour and case 2) is what your patch proposed.
> >
> > With the same test and the same nr_task/size, the result is:
> > case1(using reclaimer's node id) vm-scalability.throughput: 71033 KB/s
> > case2(using page's node id) vm-scalability.throughput: 58753 KB/s
> >
>
> The per-node swap device support is more about swap-in latency than
> swap-out throughput. I suspect the test case is more about swap-out
> throughput. perf profiling can show this.
>

On another thought, swap out can very well affect swap in latency:
since swap is involved, the available memory is in short supply and swap
in may very likely need to reclaim a page and that reclaim can involve a
swap out, so swap out performance can also affect swap in latency.

> For swap-in latency, we can use pmbench, which can output latency
> information.
>
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
>
>
> [snip]
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-04-21 16:13    [W:0.346 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site