> -----Original Message----- > From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [mailto:bige...@linutronix.de] > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 10:31 PM > To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) <song.bao....@hisilicon.com> > Cc: a...@linux-foundation.org; herb...@gondor.apana.org.au; > da...@davemloft.net; linux-cry...@vger.kernel.org; linux...@kvack.org; > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Luis Claudio R . Goncalves > <lgonc...@redhat.com>; Mahipal Challa <mahipalreddy2...@gmail.com>; > Seth Jennings <sjenn...@redhat.com>; Dan Streetman <ddstr...@ieee.org>; > Vitaly Wool <vitaly.w...@konsulko.com>; Wangzhou (B) > <wangzh...@hisilicon.com>; fanghao (A) <fangha...@huawei.com>; Colin > Ian King <colin.k...@canonical.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] mm/zswap: move to use crypto_acomp API for > hardware acceleration > > On 2020-09-29 05:14:31 [+0000], Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote: > > After second thought and trying to make this change, I would like to change > my mind > > and disagree with this idea. Two reasons: > > 1. while using this_cpu_ptr() without preemption lock, people usually put > > all > things bound > > with one cpu to one structure, so that once we get the pointer of the whole > structure, we get > > all its parts belonging to the same cpu. If we move the dstmem and mutex > out of the structure > > containing them, we will have to do: > > a. get_cpu_ptr() for the acomp_ctx //lock preemption > > b. this_cpu_ptr() for the dstmem and mutex > > c. put_cpu_ptr() for the acomp_ctx //unlock preemption > > d. mutex_lock() > > sg_init_one() > > compress/decompress etc. > > ... > > mutex_unlock > > > > as the get() and put() have a preemption lock/unlock, this will make certain > this_cpu_ptr() > > in the step "b" will return the right dstmem and mutex which belong to the > same cpu with > > step "a". > > > > The steps from "a" to "c" are quite silly and confusing. I believe the > > existing > code aligns > > with the most similar code in kernel better: > > a. this_cpu_ptr() //get everything for one cpu > > b. mutex_lock() > > sg_init_one() > > compress/decompress etc. > > ... > > mutex_unlock > > My point was that there will be a warning at run-time and you don't want > that. There are raw_ accessors if you know what you are doing. But…
I have only seen get_cpu_ptr/var() things will disable preemption. I don't think we will have a warning as this_cpu_ptr() won't disable preemption. > > Earlier you had compression/decompression with disabled preemption and No. that is right now done in enabled preemption context with this patch. The code before this patch was doing (de)compression in preemption-disabled context by using get_cpu_ptr and get_cpu_var. > strict per-CPU memory allocation. Now if you keep this per-CPU memory > allocation then you gain a possible bottleneck. > In the previous email you said that there may be a bottleneck in the > upper layer where you can't utilize all that memory you allocate. So you > may want to rethink that strategy before that rework. we are probably not talking about same thing :-) I was talking about possible generic swap bottleneck. For example, LRU is global, while swapping, multiple cores might have some locks on this LRU. for example, if we have 8 inactive pages to swap out, I am not sure if mm can use 8 cores to swap them out at the same time. > > > 2. while allocating mutex, we can put the mutex into local memory by using > kmalloc_node(). > > If we move to "struct mutex lock" directly, most CPUs in a NUMA server will > have to access > > remote memory to read/write the mutex, therefore, this will increase the > latency dramatically. > > If you need something per-CPU then DEFINE_PER_CPU() will give it to you. Yes. It is true. > It would be very bad for performance if this allocations were not from > CPU-local memory, right? So what makes you think this is worse than > kmalloc_node() based allocations? Yes. If your read zswap code, it has considered NUMA very carefully by allocating various memory locally. And in crypto framework, I also added API to allocate local compression. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=7bc13b5b60e94 this zswap patch has used the new node-aware API. Memory access crossing NUMA node, practically crossing packages, can dramatically increase, like double, triple or more. Thanks Barry
