diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/mm/frontswap.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/mm/frontswap.rst | 266 |
1 files changed, 266 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/mm/frontswap.rst b/Documentation/mm/frontswap.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000..feecc5e24 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/mm/frontswap.rst @@ -0,0 +1,266 @@ +.. _frontswap: + +========= +Frontswap +========= + +Frontswap provides a "transcendent memory" interface for swap pages. +In some environments, dramatic performance savings may be obtained because +swapped pages are saved in RAM (or a RAM-like device) instead of a swap disk. + +.. _Transcendent memory in a nutshell: https://lwn.net/Articles/454795/ + +Frontswap is so named because it can be thought of as the opposite of +a "backing" store for a swap device. The storage is assumed to be +a synchronous concurrency-safe page-oriented "pseudo-RAM device" conforming +to the requirements of transcendent memory (such as Xen's "tmem", or +in-kernel compressed memory, aka "zcache", or future RAM-like devices); +this pseudo-RAM device is not directly accessible or addressable by the +kernel and is of unknown and possibly time-varying size. The driver +links itself to frontswap by calling frontswap_register_ops to set the +frontswap_ops funcs appropriately and the functions it provides must +conform to certain policies as follows: + +An "init" prepares the device to receive frontswap pages associated +with the specified swap device number (aka "type"). A "store" will +copy the page to transcendent memory and associate it with the type and +offset associated with the page. A "load" will copy the page, if found, +from transcendent memory into kernel memory, but will NOT remove the page +from transcendent memory. An "invalidate_page" will remove the page +from transcendent memory and an "invalidate_area" will remove ALL pages +associated with the swap type (e.g., like swapoff) and notify the "device" +to refuse further stores with that swap type. + +Once a page is successfully stored, a matching load on the page will normally +succeed. So when the kernel finds itself in a situation where it needs +to swap out a page, it first attempts to use frontswap. If the store returns +success, the data has been successfully saved to transcendent memory and +a disk write and, if the data is later read back, a disk read are avoided. +If a store returns failure, transcendent memory has rejected the data, and the +page can be written to swap as usual. + +Note that if a page is stored and the page already exists in transcendent memory +(a "duplicate" store), either the store succeeds and the data is overwritten, +or the store fails AND the page is invalidated. This ensures stale data may +never be obtained from frontswap. + +If properly configured, monitoring of frontswap is done via debugfs in +the `/sys/kernel/debug/frontswap` directory. The effectiveness of +frontswap can be measured (across all swap devices) with: + +``failed_stores`` + how many store attempts have failed + +``loads`` + how many loads were attempted (all should succeed) + +``succ_stores`` + how many store attempts have succeeded + +``invalidates`` + how many invalidates were attempted + +A backend implementation may provide additional metrics. + +FAQ +=== + +* Where's the value? + +When a workload starts swapping, performance falls through the floor. +Frontswap significantly increases performance in many such workloads by +providing a clean, dynamic interface to read and write swap pages to +"transcendent memory" that is otherwise not directly addressable to the kernel. +This interface is ideal when data is transformed to a different form +and size (such as with compression) or secretly moved (as might be +useful for write-balancing for some RAM-like devices). Swap pages (and +evicted page-cache pages) are a great use for this kind of slower-than-RAM- +but-much-faster-than-disk "pseudo-RAM device". + +Frontswap with a fairly small impact on the kernel, +provides a huge amount of flexibility for more dynamic, flexible RAM +utilization in various system configurations: + +In the single kernel case, aka "zcache", pages are compressed and +stored in local memory, thus increasing the total anonymous pages +that can be safely kept in RAM. Zcache essentially trades off CPU +cycles used in compression/decompression for better memory utilization. +Benchmarks have shown little or no impact when memory pressure is +low while providing a significant performance improvement (25%+) +on some workloads under high memory pressure. + +"RAMster" builds on zcache by adding "peer-to-peer" transcendent memory +support for clustered systems. Frontswap pages are locally compressed +as in zcache, but then "remotified" to another system's RAM. This +allows RAM to be dynamically load-balanced back-and-forth as needed, +i.e. when system A is overcommitted, it can swap to system B, and +vice versa. RAMster can also be configured as a memory server so +many servers in a cluster can swap, dynamically as needed, to a single +server configured with a large amount of RAM... without pre-configuring +how much of the RAM is available for each of the clients! + +In the virtual case, the whole point of virtualization is to statistically +multiplex physical resources across the varying demands of multiple +virtual machines. This is really hard to do with RAM and efforts to do +it well with no kernel changes have essentially failed (except in some +well-publicized special-case workloads). +Specifically, the Xen Transcendent Memory backend allows otherwise +"fallow" hypervisor-owned RAM to not only be "time-shared" between multiple +virtual machines, but the pages can be compressed and deduplicated to +optimize RAM utilization. And when guest OS's are induced to surrender +underutilized RAM (e.g. with "selfballooning"), sudden unexpected +memory pressure may result in swapping; frontswap allows those pages +to be swapped to and from hypervisor RAM (if overall host system memory +conditions allow), thus mitigating the potentially awful performance impact +of unplanned swapping. + +A KVM implementation is underway and has been RFC'ed to lkml. And, +using frontswap, investigation is also underway on the use of NVM as +a memory extension technology. + +* Sure there may be performance advantages in some situations, but + what's the space/time overhead of frontswap? + +If CONFIG_FRONTSWAP is disabled, every frontswap hook compiles into +nothingness and the only overhead is a few extra bytes per swapon'ed +swap device. If CONFIG_FRONTSWAP is enabled but no frontswap "backend" +registers, there is one extra global variable compared to zero for +every swap page read or written. If CONFIG_FRONTSWAP is enabled +AND a frontswap backend registers AND the backend fails every "store" +request (i.e. provides no memory despite claiming it might), +CPU overhead is still negligible -- and since every frontswap fail +precedes a swap page write-to-disk, the system is highly likely +to be I/O bound and using a small fraction of a percent of a CPU +will be irrelevant anyway. + +As for space, if CONFIG_FRONTSWAP is enabled AND a frontswap backend +registers, one bit is allocated for every swap page for every swap +device that is swapon'd. This is added to the EIGHT bits (which +was sixteen until about 2.6.34) that the kernel already allocates +for every swap page for every swap device that is swapon'd. (Hugh +Dickins has observed that frontswap could probably steal one of +the existing eight bits, but let's worry about that minor optimization +later.) For very large swap disks (which are rare) on a standard +4K pagesize, this is 1MB per 32GB swap. + +When swap pages are stored in transcendent memory instead of written +out to disk, there is a side effect that this may create more memory +pressure that can potentially outweigh the other advantages. A +backend, such as zcache, must implement policies to carefully (but +dynamically) manage memory limits to ensure this doesn't happen. + +* OK, how about a quick overview of what this frontswap patch does + in terms that a kernel hacker can grok? + +Let's assume that a frontswap "backend" has registered during +kernel initialization; this registration indicates that this +frontswap backend has access to some "memory" that is not directly +accessible by the kernel. Exactly how much memory it provides is +entirely dynamic and random. + +Whenever a swap-device is swapon'd frontswap_init() is called, +passing the swap device number (aka "type") as a parameter. +This notifies frontswap to expect attempts to "store" swap pages +associated with that number. + +Whenever the swap subsystem is readying a page to write to a swap +device (c.f swap_writepage()), frontswap_store is called. Frontswap +consults with the frontswap backend and if the backend says it does NOT +have room, frontswap_store returns -1 and the kernel swaps the page +to the swap device as normal. Note that the response from the frontswap +backend is unpredictable to the kernel; it may choose to never accept a +page, it could accept every ninth page, or it might accept every +page. But if the backend does accept a page, the data from the page +has already been copied and associated with the type and offset, +and the backend guarantees the persistence of the data. In this case, +frontswap sets a bit in the "frontswap_map" for the swap device +corresponding to the page offset on the swap device to which it would +otherwise have written the data. + +When the swap subsystem needs to swap-in a page (swap_readpage()), +it first calls frontswap_load() which checks the frontswap_map to +see if the page was earlier accepted by the frontswap backend. If +it was, the page of data is filled from the frontswap backend and +the swap-in is complete. If not, the normal swap-in code is +executed to obtain the page of data from the real swap device. + +So every time the frontswap backend accepts a page, a swap device read +and (potentially) a swap device write are replaced by a "frontswap backend +store" and (possibly) a "frontswap backend loads", which are presumably much +faster. + +* Can't frontswap be configured as a "special" swap device that is + just higher priority than any real swap device (e.g. like zswap, + or maybe swap-over-nbd/NFS)? + +No. First, the existing swap subsystem doesn't allow for any kind of +swap hierarchy. Perhaps it could be rewritten to accommodate a hierarchy, +but this would require fairly drastic changes. Even if it were +rewritten, the existing swap subsystem uses the block I/O layer which +assumes a swap device is fixed size and any page in it is linearly +addressable. Frontswap barely touches the existing swap subsystem, +and works around the constraints of the block I/O subsystem to provide +a great deal of flexibility and dynamicity. + +For example, the acceptance of any swap page by the frontswap backend is +entirely unpredictable. This is critical to the definition of frontswap +backends because it grants completely dynamic discretion to the +backend. In zcache, one cannot know a priori how compressible a page is. +"Poorly" compressible pages can be rejected, and "poorly" can itself be +defined dynamically depending on current memory constraints. + +Further, frontswap is entirely synchronous whereas a real swap +device is, by definition, asynchronous and uses block I/O. The +block I/O layer is not only unnecessary, but may perform "optimizations" +that are inappropriate for a RAM-oriented device including delaying +the write of some pages for a significant amount of time. Synchrony is +required to ensure the dynamicity of the backend and to avoid thorny race +conditions that would unnecessarily and greatly complicate frontswap +and/or the block I/O subsystem. That said, only the initial "store" +and "load" operations need be synchronous. A separate asynchronous thread +is free to manipulate the pages stored by frontswap. For example, +the "remotification" thread in RAMster uses standard asynchronous +kernel sockets to move compressed frontswap pages to a remote machine. +Similarly, a KVM guest-side implementation could do in-guest compression +and use "batched" hypercalls. + +In a virtualized environment, the dynamicity allows the hypervisor +(or host OS) to do "intelligent overcommit". For example, it can +choose to accept pages only until host-swapping might be imminent, +then force guests to do their own swapping. + +There is a downside to the transcendent memory specifications for +frontswap: Since any "store" might fail, there must always be a real +slot on a real swap device to swap the page. Thus frontswap must be +implemented as a "shadow" to every swapon'd device with the potential +capability of holding every page that the swap device might have held +and the possibility that it might hold no pages at all. This means +that frontswap cannot contain more pages than the total of swapon'd +swap devices. For example, if NO swap device is configured on some +installation, frontswap is useless. Swapless portable devices +can still use frontswap but a backend for such devices must configure +some kind of "ghost" swap device and ensure that it is never used. + +* Why this weird definition about "duplicate stores"? If a page + has been previously successfully stored, can't it always be + successfully overwritten? + +Nearly always it can, but no, sometimes it cannot. Consider an example +where data is compressed and the original 4K page has been compressed +to 1K. Now an attempt is made to overwrite the page with data that +is non-compressible and so would take the entire 4K. But the backend +has no more space. In this case, the store must be rejected. Whenever +frontswap rejects a store that would overwrite, it also must invalidate +the old data and ensure that it is no longer accessible. Since the +swap subsystem then writes the new data to the read swap device, +this is the correct course of action to ensure coherency. + +* Why does the frontswap patch create the new include file swapfile.h? + +The frontswap code depends on some swap-subsystem-internal data +structures that have, over the years, moved back and forth between +static and global. This seemed a reasonable compromise: Define +them as global but declare them in a new include file that isn't +included by the large number of source files that include swap.h. + +Dan Magenheimer, last updated April 9, 2012 |