Re: [PATCH v10 00/13] khugepaged: mTHP support

[Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 09:27:19AM -0600, Nico Pache wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 9:25 AM Nico Pache <npache@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 9:20 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
> > <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 08:43:18PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 21/08/25 8:31 pm, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > > OK so I noticed in patch 13/13 (!) where you change the documentation that you
> > > > > essentially state that the whole method used to determine the ratio of PTEs to
> > > > > collapse to mTHP is broken:
> > > > >
> > > > >     khugepaged uses max_ptes_none scaled to the order of the enabled
> > > > >     mTHP size to determine collapses. When using mTHPs it's recommended
> > > > >     to set max_ptes_none low-- ideally less than HPAGE_PMD_NR / 2 (255
> > > > >     on 4k page size). This will prevent undesired "creep" behavior that
> > > > >     leads to continuously collapsing to the largest mTHP size; when we
> > > > >     collapse, we are bringing in new non-zero pages that will, on a
> > > > >     subsequent scan, cause the max_ptes_none check of the +1 order to
> > > > >     always be satisfied. By limiting this to less than half the current
> > > > >     order, we make sure we don't cause this feedback
> > > > >     loop. max_ptes_shared and max_ptes_swap have no effect when
> > > > >     collapsing to a mTHP, and mTHP collapse will fail on shared or
> > > > >     swapped out pages.
> > > > >
> > > > > This seems to me to suggest that using
> > > > > /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/khugepaged/max_ptes_none as some means
> > > > > of establishing a 'ratio' to do this calculation is fundamentally flawed.
> > > > >
> > > > > So surely we ought to introduce a new sysfs tunable for this? Perhaps
> > > > >
> > > > > /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/khugepaged/mthp_max_ptes_none_ratio
> > > > >
> > > > > Or something like this?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's already questionable that we are taking a value that is expressed
> > > > > essentially in terms of PTE entries per PMD and then use it implicitly to
> > > > > determine the ratio for mTHP, but to then say 'oh but the default value is
> > > > > known-broken' is just a blocker for the series in my opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > This really has to be done a different way I think.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers, Lorenzo
> > > >
> > > > FWIW this was my version of the documentation patch:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250211111326.14295-18-dev.jain@arm.com/
> > > >
> > > > The discussion about the creep problem started here:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/7098654a-776d-413b-8aca-28f811620df7@arm.com/
> > > >
> > > > and the discussion continuing here:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/37375ace-5601-4d6c-9dac-d1c8268698e9@redhat.com/
> > > >
> > > > ending with a summary I gave here:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/8114d47b-b383-4d6e-ab65-a0e88b99c873@arm.com/
> > > >
> > > > This should help you with the context.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks and I"ll have a look, but this series is unmergeable with a broken
> > > default in
> > > /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/khugepaged/mthp_max_ptes_none_ratio
> > > sorry.
> > >
> > > We need to have a new tunable as far as I can tell. I also find the use of
> > > this PMD-specific value as an arbitrary way of expressing a ratio pretty
> > > gross.
> > The first thing that comes to mind is that we can pin max_ptes_none to
> > 255 if it exceeds 255. It's worth noting that the issue occurs only
> > for adjacently enabled mTHP sizes.

No! Presumably the default of 511 (for PMDs with 512 entries) is set for a
reason, arbitrarily changing this to suit a specific case seems crazy no?

> >
> > ie)
> > if order!=HPAGE_PMD_ORDER && khugepaged_max_ptes_none > 255
> >       temp_max_ptes_none = 255;
> Oh and my second point, introducing a new tunable to control mTHP
> collapse may become exceedingly complex from a tuning and code
> management standpoint.

Umm right now you hve a ratio expressed in PTES per mTHP * ((PTEs per PMD) /
PMD) 'except please don't set to the usual default when using mTHP' and it's
currently default-broken.

I'm really not sure how that is simpler than a seprate tunable that can be
expressed as a ratio (e.g. percentage) that actually makes some kind of sense?

And we can make anything workable from a code management point of view by
refactoring/developing appropriately.

And given you're now proposing changing the default for even THP pages with a
cap or perhaps having mTHP being used silently change the cap - that is clearly
_far_ worse from a tuning standpoint.

With a new tunable you can just set a sensible default and people don't even
necessarily have to think about it.