All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm -v3] mm, swap: Sort swap entries before free
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:43:46 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170407144346.b2e5d3c8364767eb2b4118ed@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170407064901.25398-1-ying.huang@intel.com>

On Fri,  7 Apr 2017 14:49:01 +0800 "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:

> To reduce the lock contention of swap_info_struct->lock when freeing
> swap entry.  The freed swap entries will be collected in a per-CPU
> buffer firstly, and be really freed later in batch.  During the batch
> freeing, if the consecutive swap entries in the per-CPU buffer belongs
> to same swap device, the swap_info_struct->lock needs to be
> acquired/released only once, so that the lock contention could be
> reduced greatly.  But if there are multiple swap devices, it is
> possible that the lock may be unnecessarily released/acquired because
> the swap entries belong to the same swap device are non-consecutive in
> the per-CPU buffer.
> 
> To solve the issue, the per-CPU buffer is sorted according to the swap
> device before freeing the swap entries.  Test shows that the time
> spent by swapcache_free_entries() could be reduced after the patch.
> 
> Test the patch via measuring the run time of swap_cache_free_entries()
> during the exit phase of the applications use much swap space.  The
> results shows that the average run time of swap_cache_free_entries()
> reduced about 20% after applying the patch.

"20%" is useful info, but it is much better to present the absolute
numbers, please.  If it's "20% of one nanosecond" then the patch isn't
very interesting.  If it's "20% of 35 seconds" then we know we have
more work to do.

If there is indeed still a significant problem here then perhaps it
would be better to move the percpu swp_entry_t buffer into the
per-device structure swap_info_struct, so it becomes "per cpu, per
device".  That way we should be able to reduce contention further.

Or maybe we do something else - it all depends upon the significance of
this problem, which is why a full description of your measurements is
useful.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm -v3] mm, swap: Sort swap entries before free
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:43:46 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170407144346.b2e5d3c8364767eb2b4118ed@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170407064901.25398-1-ying.huang@intel.com>

On Fri,  7 Apr 2017 14:49:01 +0800 "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:

> To reduce the lock contention of swap_info_struct->lock when freeing
> swap entry.  The freed swap entries will be collected in a per-CPU
> buffer firstly, and be really freed later in batch.  During the batch
> freeing, if the consecutive swap entries in the per-CPU buffer belongs
> to same swap device, the swap_info_struct->lock needs to be
> acquired/released only once, so that the lock contention could be
> reduced greatly.  But if there are multiple swap devices, it is
> possible that the lock may be unnecessarily released/acquired because
> the swap entries belong to the same swap device are non-consecutive in
> the per-CPU buffer.
> 
> To solve the issue, the per-CPU buffer is sorted according to the swap
> device before freeing the swap entries.  Test shows that the time
> spent by swapcache_free_entries() could be reduced after the patch.
> 
> Test the patch via measuring the run time of swap_cache_free_entries()
> during the exit phase of the applications use much swap space.  The
> results shows that the average run time of swap_cache_free_entries()
> reduced about 20% after applying the patch.

"20%" is useful info, but it is much better to present the absolute
numbers, please.  If it's "20% of one nanosecond" then the patch isn't
very interesting.  If it's "20% of 35 seconds" then we know we have
more work to do.

If there is indeed still a significant problem here then perhaps it
would be better to move the percpu swp_entry_t buffer into the
per-device structure swap_info_struct, so it becomes "per cpu, per
device".  That way we should be able to reduce contention further.

Or maybe we do something else - it all depends upon the significance of
this problem, which is why a full description of your measurements is
useful.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-04-07 21:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-07  6:49 [PATCH -mm -v3] mm, swap: Sort swap entries before free Huang, Ying
2017-04-07  6:49 ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-07 13:05 ` Rik van Riel
2017-04-07 13:05   ` Rik van Riel
2017-04-07 21:43 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2017-04-07 21:43   ` Andrew Morton
2017-04-11  7:03   ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-11  7:03     ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-14  1:36   ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-14  1:36     ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-14  1:41     ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-18  4:59 ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-18  4:59   ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-19  8:14   ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-19  8:14     ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-20  6:38     ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-20  6:38       ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-20  7:15       ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-20  7:15         ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-21 12:29         ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-21 12:29           ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-21 23:29           ` Tim Chen
2017-04-21 23:29             ` Tim Chen
2017-04-23 13:16             ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-23 13:16               ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-24 16:03               ` Tim Chen
2017-04-24 16:03                 ` Tim Chen
2017-04-24  4:52           ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-24  4:52             ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-24  6:47             ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-24  6:47               ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-26 12:42             ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-26 12:42               ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-26 20:13               ` Tim Chen
2017-04-26 20:13                 ` Tim Chen
2017-04-27  1:21                 ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-27  1:21                   ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-27 16:48                   ` Tim Chen
2017-04-27 16:48                     ` Tim Chen
2017-04-27  4:35               ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-27  4:35                 ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-28  1:09                 ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-28  1:09                   ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-28  7:42                   ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-28  7:42                     ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-28  8:05                     ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-28  8:05                       ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-28  9:00                       ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-28  9:00                         ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-28 11:48                         ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-28 11:48                           ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-28 13:35                           ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-28 13:35                             ` Huang, Ying
2017-05-02  5:02                             ` Minchan Kim
2017-05-02  5:02                               ` Minchan Kim
2017-05-02  5:35                               ` Huang, Ying
2017-05-02  5:35                                 ` Huang, Ying
2017-05-02  5:48                                 ` Minchan Kim
2017-05-02  5:48                                   ` Minchan Kim
2017-05-02  6:08                                   ` Huang, Ying
2017-05-02  6:08                                     ` Huang, Ying

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170407144346.b2e5d3c8364767eb2b4118ed@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=minchan@kernel.org \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=shli@kernel.org \
    --cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.