From: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@gmail.com>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, nphamcs@gmail.com,
chengming.zhou@linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] selftests: cgroup: add tests to verify the zswap writeback path
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 12:16:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10bf047a-88b8-4502-a7e2-1ae35f8d57ec@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJD7tkbevtBCcWUQYZwyqM7WMjLfN+BNE3LwQjFzNkOEgRO1cw@mail.gmail.com>
On 03/05/2024 03:36, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 12:02 PM Usama Arif <usamaarif642@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Initate writeback with the below steps and check using
>> memory.stat.zswpwb if zswap writeback occurred:
>> 1. Allocate memory.
>> 2. Reclaim memory equal to the amount that was allocated in step 1.
>> This will move it into zswap.
>> 3. Save current zswap usage.
>> 4. Move the memory allocated in step 1 back in from zswap.
>> 5. Set zswap.max to half the amount that was recorded in step 3.
>> 6. Attempt to reclaim memory equal to the amount that was allocated,
>> this will either trigger writeback if its enabled, or reclamation
>> will fail if writeback is disabled as there isn't enough zswap
>> space.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_zswap.c | 125 +++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 124 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_zswap.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_zswap.c
>> index f0e488ed90d8..cd864ab825d0 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_zswap.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/test_zswap.c
>> @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ static int get_zswap_stored_pages(size_t *value)
>> return read_int("/sys/kernel/debug/zswap/stored_pages", value);
>> }
>>
>> -static int get_cg_wb_count(const char *cg)
>> +static long get_cg_wb_count(const char *cg)
>> {
>> return cg_read_key_long(cg, "memory.stat", "zswpwb");
>> }
>> @@ -248,6 +248,127 @@ static int test_zswapin(const char *root)
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Initate writeback with the following steps:
>> + * 1. Allocate memory.
>> + * 2. Reclaim memory equal to the amount that was allocated in step 1.
>> + This will move it into zswap.
>> + * 3. Save current zswap usage.
>> + * 4. Move the memory allocated in step 1 back in from zswap.
>> + * 5. Set zswap.max to half the amount that was recorded in step 3.
>> + * 6. Attempt to reclaim memory equal to the amount that was allocated,
>> + this will either trigger writeback if its enabled, or reclamation
>> + will fail if writeback is disabled as there isn't enough zswap space.
>> + */
>> +static int initiate_writeback(const char *cgroup, void *arg)
>> +{
>> + char *test_group = arg;
>> + size_t memsize = MB(4);
>> + int ret = -1;
>> + bool wb_enabled = cg_read_long(test_group, "memory.zswap.writeback");
>> + long zswap_usage;
> Nit: Reverse christmas tree (i.e. is usually more aesthetically
> pleasing, but it isn't consistently followed but up to you. You can
> separate the declaration and initialization of wb_enabled to do that
> if you choose to.
>
Thanks for the review. Will change it in next revision.
>> +
>> + if (cg_write(test_group, "memory.max", "8M"))
>> + return ret;
> Why do we need to set this?
Not needed, will remove.
>> +
>> + /* Allocate random memory to enusre high zswap memory usage */
> typo: ensure
>
>> + char *mem = (char *)malloc(memsize);
>> +
>> + if (!mem)
>> + return ret;
>> + for (int i = 0; i < memsize; i++)
>> + mem[i] = rand() % 128;
> I am curious, what compression ratio do you observe in practice with
> this? Is there a risk of pages becoming totally incompressible and
> skipping zswap? One way to guarantee the page compressibility is to
> add a bunch of zeros. I usually fill half of it with zeros and half of
> it with random data. Not sure if this is actually required though.
>
With the default zswap parameters, zswap.current is 3491645, so about
1.2:1. I had tried a few different zswap parameters and compression was
still taking place. I initially tried the method from allocate_bytes,
but the compression was too high with all the zeros and zswap was a
really small value. Will switch to your method in next revision.
>> +
>> + /* Try and reclaim allocated memory */
>> + if (cg_write(test_group, "memory.reclaim", "4M")) {
>> + ksft_print_msg("Failed to reclaim all of the requested memory\n");
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + zswap_usage = cg_read_long(test_group, "memory.zswap.current");
>> +
>> + /* zswpin */
>> + for (int i = 0; i < memsize; i++) {
>> + if (mem[i] < 0 || mem[i] > 127) {
>> + ksft_print_msg("invalid memory\n");
>> + ret = -1;
>> + }
>> + }
> I understand this correctness check is not strictly needed, but it is
> very weak right now. There is a 50% chance that corruption will be
> missed because the range we are checking is half the possible values.
>
> If we want a reliable correctness check, perhaps we should fill the
> page with increasing known values instead. Then after zswpin, we can
> check that the data is exactly what we filled in the first place.
>
> Is there any value in using random data here? If there is, we can
> store a second copy of the array to compare against instead.
So my thought over here was not to do a correctness check for zswap,
just to access memory to do zswpin. Switching to the method in the
comment above, we can do a correctness check as well, so will add that
in next revision.
>> +
>> + if (cg_write_numeric(test_group, "memory.zswap.max", zswap_usage/2))
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If writeback is enabled, trying to reclaim memory now will trigger a
>> + * writeback as zswap.max is half of what was needed when reclaim ran the first time.
>> + * If writeback is disabled, memory reclaim will fail as zswap is limited and
>> + * it can't writeback to swap.
>> + */
>> + ret = cg_write(test_group, "memory.reclaim", "4M");
>> + if (!wb_enabled && ret)
> Should we assert that ret is -EBUSY if !wb_enabled instead? Right now
> any error code will pass. The test will also pass if reclaim succeeds
> while writeback is disabled, which is not correct behavior.
I believe its -EAGAIN, but yes will change it.
>> + ret = 0;
>> +out:
>> + free(mem);
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* Test to verify the zswap writeback path */
>> +static int test_zswap_writeback(const char *root, bool wb)
>> +{
>> + int ret = KSFT_FAIL;
>> + char *test_group;
>> + long zswpwb_before, zswpwb_after;
>> +
>> + test_group = cg_name(root,
>> + wb ? "zswap_writeback_enabled_test" : "zswap_writeback_disabled_test");
> Why do we need different cgroup names? The tests do not run in
> parallel, do they?
>
It makes the tests independent of each other (for e.g. if cg_destroy for
any magical reason fails for one of the tests, the cgroup creation of
the other test wont be affected). Plus, I found it easier for debugging
to examine cgroups after the test was executed. But no strong
preference, will change it to one name.
>> + if (!test_group)
>> + goto out;
>> + if (cg_create(test_group))
>> + goto out;
>> + if (cg_write(test_group, "memory.zswap.writeback", wb ? "1" : "0"))
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + zswpwb_before = get_cg_wb_count(test_group);
>> + if (zswpwb_before < 0) {
> Should we assert zswpwb_before == 0 instead?
Sure, will do in next revision.
>> + ksft_print_msg("failed to get zswpwb_before\n");
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (cg_run(test_group, initiate_writeback, (void *) test_group))
> Nit: initiate_writeback() is not a very descriptive name because it
> may or may not trigger writeback.
>
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + /* Verify that zswap writeback occurred only if writeback was enabled */
>> + zswpwb_after = get_cg_wb_count(test_group);
>> + if (wb) {
>> + if (zswpwb_after <= zswpwb_before) {
> If we assert zswpwb_before == 0 above, this can be simplified. Also, I
> think a single condition is enough, the message contents can be
> inferred by which test failed.
>
>> + ksft_print_msg("writeback enabled and zswpwb_after <= zswpwb_before\n");
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> + } else {
>> + if (zswpwb_after != zswpwb_before) {
>> + ksft_print_msg("writeback disabled and zswpwb_after != zswpwb_before\n");
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + ret = KSFT_PASS;
>> +
>> +out:
>> + cg_destroy(test_group);
>> + free(test_group);
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int test_zswap_writeback_enabled(const char *root)
>> +{
>> + return test_zswap_writeback(root, true);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int test_zswap_writeback_disabled(const char *root)
>> +{
>> + return test_zswap_writeback(root, false);
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * When trying to store a memcg page in zswap, if the memcg hits its memory
>> * limit in zswap, writeback should affect only the zswapped pages of that
>> @@ -425,6 +546,8 @@ struct zswap_test {
>> T(test_zswap_usage),
>> T(test_swapin_nozswap),
>> T(test_zswapin),
>> + T(test_zswap_writeback_enabled),
>> + T(test_zswap_writeback_disabled),
>> T(test_no_kmem_bypass),
>> T(test_no_invasive_cgroup_shrink),
>> };
>> --
>> 2.43.0
>>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-03 11:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-02 18:58 [PATCH v2 0/1] cgroup: add tests to verify the zswap writeback path Usama Arif
2024-05-02 18:58 ` [PATCH v2 1/1] selftests: " Usama Arif
2024-05-03 2:36 ` Yosry Ahmed
2024-05-03 11:16 ` Usama Arif [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=10bf047a-88b8-4502-a7e2-1ae35f8d57ec@gmail.com \
--to=usamaarif642@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chengming.zhou@linux.dev \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=nphamcs@gmail.com \
--cc=yosryahmed@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).