Currently, we use a rwlock tb_lock to protect concurrent access to the
whole zram meta table. However, according to the actual access model,
there is only a small chance for upper user to access the same
table[index], so the current lock granularity is too big.
The idea of optimization is to change the lock granularity from whole
meta table to per table entry (table -> table[index]), so that we can
protect concurrent access to the same table[index], meanwhile allow the
maximum concurrency.
With this in mind, several kinds of locks which could be used as a
per-entry lock were tested and compared:
Test environment:
x86-64 Intel Core2 Q8400, system memory 4GB, Ubuntu 12.04,
kernel v3.15.0-rc3 as base, zram with 4 max_comp_streams LZO.
iozone test:
iozone -t 4 -R -r 16K -s 200M -I +Z
(1GB zram with ext4 filesystem, take the average of 10 tests, KB/s)
Test base CAS spinlock rwlock bit_spinlock
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial write 1381094 1425435 1422860 1423075 1421521
Rewrite 1529479 1641199 1668762 1672855 1654910
Read 8468009 11324979 11305569 11117273 10997202
Re-read 8467476 11260914 11248059 11145336 10906486
Reverse Read 6821393 8106334 8282174 8279195 8109186
Stride read 7191093 8994306 9153982 8961224 9004434
Random read 7156353 8957932 9167098 8980465 8940476
Mixed workload 4172747 5680814 5927825 5489578 5972253
Random write 1483044 1605588 1594329 1600453 1596010
Pwrite 1276644 1303108 1311612 1314228 1300960
Pread 4324337 4632869 4618386 4457870 4500166
To enhance the possibility of access the same table[index] concurrently,
set zram a small disksize(10MB) and let threads run with large loop
count.
fio test:
fio --bs=32k --randrepeat=1 --randseed=100 --refill_buffers
--scramble_buffers=1 --direct=1 --loops=3000 --numjobs=4
--filename=/dev/zram0 --name=seq-write --rw=write --stonewall
--name=seq-read --rw=read --stonewall --name=seq-readwrite
--rw=rw --stonewall --name=rand-readwrite --rw=randrw --stonewall
(10MB zram raw block device, take the average of 10 tests, KB/s)
Test base CAS spinlock rwlock bit_spinlock
-------------------------------------------------------------
seq-write 933789 999357 1003298 995961 1001958
seq-read 5634130 6577930 6380861 6243912 6230006
seq-rw 1405687 1638117 1640256 1633903 1634459
rand-rw 1386119 1614664 1617211 1609267 1612471
All the optimization methods show a higher performance than the base,
however, it is hard to say which method is the most appropriate.
On the other hand, zram is mostly used on small embedded system, so we
don't want to increase any memory footprint.
This patch pick the bit_spinlock method, pack object size and page_flag
into an unsigned long table.value, so as to not increase any memory
overhead on both 32-bit and 64-bit system.
On the third hand, even though different kinds of locks have different
performances, we can ignore this difference, because: if zram is used as
zram swapfile, the swap subsystem can prevent concurrent access to the
same swapslot; if zram is used as zram-blk for set up filesystem on it,
the upper filesystem and the page cache also prevent concurrent access
of the same block mostly. So we can ignore the different performances
among locks.
Acked-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Weijie Yang <weijie.yang@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@redhat.com>
Cc: Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
d2d5e762c8