Re: swap on eMMC and other flash

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Hi Arnd,

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Monday 16 April 2012, Stephan Uphoff wrote:
>> opportunity to plant a few ideas.
>>
>> In contrast to rotational disks read/write operation overhead and
>> costs are not symmetric.
>> While random reads are much faster on flash - the number of write
>> operations is limited by wearout and garbage collection overhead.
>> To further improve swapping on eMMC or similar flash media I believe
>> that the following issues need to be addressed:
>>
>> 1) Limit average write bandwidth to eMMC to a configurable level to
>> guarantee a minimum device lifetime
>> 2) Aim for a low write amplification factor to maximize useable write bandwidth
>> 3) Strongly favor read over write operations
>>
>> Lowering write amplification (2) has been discussed in this email
>> thread - and the only observation I would like to add is that
>> over-provisioning the internal swap space compared to the exported
>> swap space significantly can guarantee a lower write amplification
>> factor with the indirection and GC techniques discussed.
>
> Yes, good point.
>
>> I believe the swap functionality is currently optimized for storage
>> media where read and write costs are nearly identical.
>> As this is not the case on flash I propose splitting the anonymous
>> inactive queue (at least conceptually) - keeping clean anonymous pages
>> with swap slots on a separate queue as the cost of swapping them
>> out/in is only an inexpensive read operation. A variable similar to
>> swapiness (or a more dynamic algorithmn) could determine the
>> preference for swapping out clean pages or dirty pages. ( A similar
>> argument could be made for splitting up the file inactive queue )
>
> I'm not sure I understand yet how this would be different from swappiness.

As I see it swappiness determines the ratio for paging out file backed
as compared to anonymous, swap backed pages.
I would like to further be able to set the ratio for throwing away
clean anonymous pages with swap slots ( that are easy to read back in)
as compared to writing out dirty anonymous pages to swap.

>
>> The problem of limiting the average write bandwidth reminds me of
>> enforcing cpu utilization limits on interactive workloads.
>> Just as with cpu workloads - using the resources to the limit produces
>> poor interactivity.
>> When interactivity suffers too much I believe the only sane response
>> for an interactive device is to limit usage of the swap device and
>> transition into a low memory situation - and if needed - either
>> allowing userspace to reduce memory usage or invoking the OOM killer.
>> As a result low memory situations could not only be encountered on new
>> memory allocations but also on workload changes that increase the
>> number of dirty pages.
>
> While swap is just a special case for anonymous memory in writeback
> rather than file backed pages, I think what you want here is a tuning
> knob that decides whether we should discard a clean page or write back
> a dirty page under memory pressure. I have to say that I don't know
> whether we already have such a knob or whether we already treat them
> differently, but it is certainly a valid observation that on hard
> drives, discarding a clean page that is likely going to be needed
> again has about the same overhead as writing back a dirty page
> (i.e. one seek operation), while on flash the former would be much
> cheaper than the latter.

Exactly - as far as I see there is no such knob.
I mentioned splitting the anonymous inactive queue (in clean and
dirty) as I believe it would make it easier to implement such a knob
while maintaining the maximum of LRU information..

>
>> A wild idea to avoid some writes altogether is to see if
>> de-duplication techniques can be used to (partially?) match pages
>> previously written so swap.
>
> Interesting! We already have KSM (kernel samepage merging) to do
> the same thing in memory, but I don't know how that works
> during swapout. It might already be there, waiting to get switched
> on, or might not be possible until we implemnt an extra remapping
> layer in swap as has been proposed. It's certainly worth remembering
> this as we work on the design for that remapping layer.
>
>> In case of unencrypted swap  (or encrypted swap with a static key)
>> swap pages on eMMC could even be re-used across multiple reboots.
>> A simple version would just compare dirty pages with data in their
>> swap slots as I suspect (but really don't know) that some user space
>> algorithms (garbage collection?) dirty a page just temporarily -
>> eventually reverting it to the previous content.
>
> I think that would incur overhead for indexing the pages in swap space
> in a persistent way, something that by itself would contribute to
> write amplification because for every swapout, we would have to write
> both the page and the index (eventually), and that index would likely
> be a random write.

I agree - overhead may be too big.
Still unless it is too energy intensive I could see a case for an idle
task to match up anonymous pages to pre-existing swap data sometimes
after reboot ( and before memory is tight )
Unless memory layout is randomized I expect many anonymous pages to
end up with the same data boot after boot.

>
> Thanks for your thoughts!
>
>        Arnd

Thanks for working on this

Stephan

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href


[Site Home]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Tools]     [DDR & Rambus]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

Add to Google Google PageRank Checking tool