Re: [PATCH] support "THPeligible" semantics for mTHP with anonymous shmem

David Hildenbrand
2024-07-02T08:28:13Z

On 02.07.24 10:24, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 01/07/2024 19:20, Yang Shi wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 3:23 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01.07.24 12:16, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>> On 01/07/2024 10:17, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> On 01.07.24 11:14, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/07/2024 09:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>> On 01.07.24 10:50, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 01/07/2024 09:48, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 01.07.24 10:40, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 01/07/2024 09:33, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024/7/1 15:55, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/06/2024 11:49, Bang Li wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> After the commit 7fb1b252afb5 ("mm: shmem: add mTHP support for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anonymous shmem"), we can configure different policies through
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the multi-size THP sysfs interface for anonymous shmem. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently "THPeligible" indicates only whether the mapping is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> eligible for allocating THP-pages as well as the THP is PMD
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mappable or not for anonymous shmem, we need to support semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for mTHP with anonymous shmem similar to those for mTHP with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anonymous memory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bang Li <libang.li@antgroup.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 10 +++++++---
>>>>>>>>>>>>> include/linux/huge_mm.h | 11 +++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mm/shmem.c | 9 +--------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> index 93fb2c61b154..09b5db356886 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -870,6 +870,7 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> struct vm_area_struct *vma = v;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> struct mem_size_stats mss = {};
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + bool thp_eligible;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> smap_gather_stats(vma, &mss, 0);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -882,9 +883,12 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, void
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *v)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> __show_smap(m, &mss, false);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - seq_printf(m, "THPeligible: %8u\n",
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - !!thp_vma_allowable_orders(vma, vma->vm_flags,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - TVA_SMAPS | TVA_ENFORCE_SYSFS, THP_ORDERS_ALL));
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + thp_eligible = !!thp_vma_allowable_orders(vma, vma->vm_flags,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + TVA_SMAPS | TVA_ENFORCE_SYSFS, THP_ORDERS_ALL);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (vma_is_anon_shmem(vma))
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + thp_eligible =
>>>>>>>>>>>>> !!shmem_allowable_huge_orders(file_inode(vma->vm_file),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + vma, vma->vm_pgoff, thp_eligible);
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Afraid I haven't been following the shmem mTHP support work as much as I
>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>> have liked, but is there a reason why we need a separate function for
>>>>>>>>>>>> shmem?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since shmem_allowable_huge_orders() only uses shmem specific logic to
>>>>>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>>>>>> if huge orders are allowable, there is no need to complicate the
>>>>>>>>>>> thp_vma_allowable_orders() function by adding more shmem related logic,
>>>>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>>> it more bloated. In my view, providing a dedicated helper
>>>>>>>>>>> shmem_allowable_huge_orders(), specifically for shmem, simplifies the logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My point was really that a single interface (thp_vma_allowable_orders)
>>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>> used to get this information. I have no strong opinon on how the
>>>>>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>>>>> of that interface looks. What you suggest below seems perfectly reasonable
>>>>>>>>>> to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right. thp_vma_allowable_orders() might require some care as discussed in
>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>> context (cleanly separate dax and shmem handling/orders). But that would be
>>>>>>>>> follow-up cleanups.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you planning to do that, or do you want me to send a patch?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm planning on looking into some details, especially the interaction with large
>>>>>>> folios in the pagecache. I'll let you know once I have a better idea what
>>>>>>> actually should be done :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK great - I'll scrub it from my todo list... really getting things done today :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Resolved the khugepaged thiny already? :P
>>>>>
>>>>> [khugepaged not active when only enabling the sub-size via the 2M folder IIRC]
>>>>
>>>> Hmm... baby brain?
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> I think I only mentioned it in a private mail at some point.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry about that. I've been a bit useless lately. For some reason it wasn't on
>>>> my list, but its there now. Will prioritise it, because I agree it's not good.
>>>
>>>
>>> IIRC, if you do
>>>
>>> echo never > /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled
>>> echo always > /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/hugepages-2048kB/enabled
>>>
>>> khugepaged will not get activated.
>>
>> khugepaged is controlled by the top level knob.
>
> What do you mean by "top level knob"? I assume
> /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled ?
>
> If so, that's not really a thing in its own right; its just the legacy PMD-size
> THP control, and we only take any notice of it if a per-size control is set to
> "inherit". So if we have:

In a simpler world, where "enabled" would have been a boolean (true /
false), we could have made it a universal killswitch that is AND'ed with
the other ones.

Unfortunately, we don't live in such a simple world.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb