> -----Original Message-----
> From: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 11:38 AM
> To: 'Vitaly Wool' <[email protected]>
> Cc: Shakeel Butt <[email protected]>; Minchan Kim <[email protected]>; Mike
> Galbraith <[email protected]>; LKML <[email protected]>; linux-mm
> <[email protected]>; Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]>;
> NitinGupta <[email protected]>; Sergey Senozhatsky
> <[email protected]>; Andrew Morton
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vitaly Wool [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 11:12 AM
> > To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Shakeel Butt <[email protected]>; Minchan Kim <[email protected]>;
> Mike
> > Galbraith <[email protected]>; LKML <[email protected]>; linux-mm
> > <[email protected]>; Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]>;
> > NitinGupta <[email protected]>; Sergey Senozhatsky
> > <[email protected]>; Andrew Morton
> > <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:30 PM Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Shakeel Butt [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 10:03 AM
> > > > To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) <[email protected]>
> > > > Cc: Vitaly Wool <[email protected]>; Minchan Kim
> > <[email protected]>;
> > > > Mike Galbraith <[email protected]>; LKML <[email protected]>;
> > linux-mm
> > > > <[email protected]>; Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]>;
> > > > NitinGupta <[email protected]>; Sergey Senozhatsky
> > > > <[email protected]>; Andrew Morton
> > > > <[email protected]>
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 12:06 PM Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Shakeel Butt [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 8:50 AM
> > > > > > To: Vitaly Wool <[email protected]>
> > > > > > Cc: Minchan Kim <[email protected]>; Mike Galbraith
> > > > > > <[email protected]>;
> > LKML
> > > > > > <[email protected]>; linux-mm <[email protected]>; Song
> > Bao
> > > > Hua
> > > > > > (Barry Song) <[email protected]>; Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> > > > > > <[email protected]>; NitinGupta <[email protected]>; Sergey
> > > > Senozhatsky
> > > > > > <[email protected]>; Andrew Morton
> > > > > > <[email protected]>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 11:20 AM Vitaly Wool
> > > > > > <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 6:24 PM Minchan Kim <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 02:22:28AM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> > > > > > > > > zsmalloc takes bit spinlock in its _map() callback and
> > > > > > > > > releases
> > it
> > > > > > > > > only in unmap() which is unsafe and leads to zswap complaining
> > > > > > > > > about scheduling in atomic context.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To fix that and to improve RT properties of zsmalloc, remove
> that
> > > > > > > > > bit spinlock completely and use a bit flag instead.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't want to use such open code for the lock.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I see from Mike's patch, recent zswap change introduced the
> > > > > > > > lockdep
> > > > > > > > splat bug and you want to improve zsmalloc to fix the zswap bug
> > and
> > > > > > > > introduce this patch with allowing preemption enabling.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This understanding is upside down. The code in zswap you are
> > > > > > > referring
> > > > > > > to is not buggy. You may claim that it is suboptimal but there is
> > > > > > > nothing wrong in taking a mutex.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is this suboptimal for all or just the hardware accelerators? Sorry,
> > I
> > > > > > am not very familiar with the crypto API. If I select lzo or lz4 as
> > a
> > > > > > zswap compressor will the [de]compression be async or sync?
> > > > >
> > > > > Right now, in crypto subsystem, new drivers are required to write
> > > > > based
> > on
> > > > > async APIs. The old sync API can't work in new accelerator drivers as
> > they
> > > > > are not supported at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Old drivers are used to sync, but they've got async wrappers to
> > > > > support
> > async
> > > > > APIs. Eg.
> > > > > crypto: acomp - add support for lz4 via scomp
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/
> > > > crypto/lz4.c?id=8cd9330e0a615c931037d4def98b5ce0d540f08d
> > > > >
> > > > > crypto: acomp - add support for lzo via scomp
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/
> > > > crypto/lzo.c?id=ac9d2c4b39e022d2c61486bfc33b730cfd02898e
> > > > >
> > > > > so they are supporting async APIs but they are still working in sync
> mode
> > > > as
> > > > > those old drivers don't sleep.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Good to know that those are sync because I want them to be sync.
> > > > Please note that zswap is a cache in front of a real swap and the load
> > > > operation is latency sensitive as it comes in the page fault path and
> > > > directly impacts the applications. I doubt decompressing synchronously
> > > > a 4k page on a cpu will be costlier than asynchronously decompressing
> > > > the same page from hardware accelerators.
> > >
> > > If you read the old paper:
> > >
> >
> https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/new-linux-zswap-compression-functionalit
> > y
> > > Because the hardware accelerator speeds up compression, looking at the
> > > zswap
> > > metrics we observed that there were more store and load requests in a
> > > given
> > > amount of time, which filled up the zswap pool faster than a software
> > > compression run. Because of this behavior, we set the max_pool_percent
> > > parameter to 30 for the hardware compression runs - this means that zswap
> > > can use up to 30% of the 10GB of total memory.
> > >
> > > So using hardware accelerators, we get a chance to speed up compression
> > > while decreasing cpu utilization.
> > >
> > > BTW, If it is not easy to change zsmalloc, one quick workaround we might
> do
> > > in zswap is adding the below after applying Mike's original patch:
> > >
> > > if(in_atomic()) /* for zsmalloc */
> > > while(!try_wait_for_completion(&req->done);
> > > else /* for zbud, z3fold */
> > > crypto_wait_req(....);
> >
> > I don't think I'm going to ack this, sorry.
> >
>
> Fair enough. And I am also thinking if we can move zpool_unmap_handle()
> quite after zpool_map_handle() as below:
>
> dlen = PAGE_SIZE;
> src = zpool_map_handle(entry->pool->zpool, entry->handle, ZPOOL_MM_RO);
> if (zpool_evictable(entry->pool->zpool))
> src += sizeof(struct zswap_header);
> + zpool_unmap_handle(entry->pool->zpool, entry->handle);
>
> acomp_ctx = raw_cpu_ptr(entry->pool->acomp_ctx);
> mutex_lock(acomp_ctx->mutex);
> sg_init_one(&input, src, entry->length);
> sg_init_table(&output, 1);
> sg_set_page(&output, page, PAGE_SIZE, 0);
> acomp_request_set_params(acomp_ctx->req, &input, &output, entry->length,
> dlen);
> ret = crypto_wait_req(crypto_acomp_decompress(acomp_ctx->req),
> &acomp_ctx->wait);
> mutex_unlock(acomp_ctx->mutex);
>
> - zpool_unmap_handle(entry->pool->zpool, entry->handle);
>
> Since src is always low memory and we only need its virtual address
> to get the page of src in sg_init_one(). We don't actually read it
> by CPU anywhere.
The below code might be better:
dlen = PAGE_SIZE;
src = zpool_map_handle(entry->pool->zpool, entry->handle, ZPOOL_MM_RO);
if (zpool_evictable(entry->pool->zpool))
src += sizeof(struct zswap_header);
acomp_ctx = raw_cpu_ptr(entry->pool->acomp_ctx);
+ zpool_unmap_handle(entry->pool->zpool, entry->handle);
mutex_lock(acomp_ctx->mutex);
sg_init_one(&input, src, entry->length);
sg_init_table(&output, 1);
sg_set_page(&output, page, PAGE_SIZE, 0);
acomp_request_set_params(acomp_ctx->req, &input, &output,
entry->length, dlen);
ret = crypto_wait_req(crypto_acomp_decompress(acomp_ctx->req),
&acomp_ctx->wait);
mutex_unlock(acomp_ctx->mutex);
- zpool_unmap_handle(entry->pool->zpool, entry->handle);
>
> > Best regards,
> > Vitaly
> >
> > > crypto_wait_req() is actually doing wait_for_completion():
> > > static inline int crypto_wait_req(int err, struct crypto_wait *wait)
> > > {
> > > switch (err) {
> > > case -EINPROGRESS:
> > > case -EBUSY:
> > > wait_for_completion(&wait->completion);
> > > reinit_completion(&wait->completion);
> > > err = wait->err;
> > > break;
> > > }
> > >
> > > return err;
> > > }
Thanks
Barry
