Re: [PATCH] mm: swap: async free swap slot cache entries

[Yosry Ahmed]

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 10:25 PM Chris Li <chrisl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> We discovered that 1% swap page fault is 100us+ while 50% of
> the swap fault is under 20us.
>
> Further investigation show that a large portion of the time
> spent in the free_swap_slots() function for the long tail case.
>
> The percpu cache of swap slots is freed in a batch of 64 entries
> inside free_swap_slots(). These cache entries are accumulated
> from previous page faults, which may not be related to the current
> process.
>
> Doing the batch free in the page fault handler causes longer
> tail latencies and penalizes the current process.
>
> Move free_swap_slots() outside of the swapin page fault handler into an
> async work queue to avoid such long tail latencies.
>
> Testing:
>
> Chun-Tse did some benchmark in chromebook, showing that
> zram_wait_metrics improve about 15% with 80% and 95% confidence.
>
> I recently ran some experiments on about 1000 Google production
> machines. It shows swapin latency drops in the long tail
> 100us - 500us bucket dramatically.
>
> platform        (100-500us)             (0-100us)
> A               1.12% -> 0.36%          98.47% -> 99.22%
> B               0.65% -> 0.15%          98.96% -> 99.46%
> C               0.61% -> 0.23%          98.96% -> 99.38%

I recall you mentioning that mem_cgroup_uncharge_swap() is the most
expensive part of the batched freeing. If that's the case, I am
curious what happens if we move that call outside of the batching
(i.e. once the swap entry is no longer used and will be returned to
the cache). This should amortize the cost of memcg uncharging and
reduce the tail fault latency without extra work. Arguably, it could
increase the average fault latency, but not necessarily in a
significant way.

Ying pointed out something similar if I understand correctly (and
other operations that can be moved).

Also, if we choose to follow this route, I think there we should flush
the async worker in drain_slots_cache_cpu(), right?