linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 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.

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

Thread overview: 30+ 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 13:05 ` Rik van Riel
2017-04-07 21:43 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2017-04-11  7:03   ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-14  1:36   ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-18  4:59 ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-19  8:14   ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-20  6:38     ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-20  7:15       ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-21 12:29         ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-21 23:29           ` Tim Chen
2017-04-23 13:16             ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-24 16:03               ` Tim Chen
2017-04-24  4:52           ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-24  6:47             ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-26 12:42             ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-26 20:13               ` Tim Chen
2017-04-27  1:21                 ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-27 16:48                   ` Tim Chen
2017-04-27  4:35               ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-28  1:09                 ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-28  7:42                   ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-28  8:05                     ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-28  9:00                       ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-28 11:48                         ` Huang, Ying
2017-04-28 13:35                           ` Huang, Ying
2017-05-02  5:02                             ` Minchan Kim
2017-05-02  5:35                               ` Huang, Ying
2017-05-02  5:48                                 ` Minchan Kim
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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).