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

Nico Pache
2025-08-21T15:27:48Z

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.
>
> 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.
> >
> > Thanks, Lorenzo
> >