Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] mm/mprotect: Remove NUMA_HUGE_PTE_UPDATES

Peter Xu
2024-08-04T15:06:12Z

On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 02:18:26PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 15.07.24 21:21, Peter Xu wrote:
> > In 2013, commit 72403b4a0fbd ("mm: numa: return the number of base pages
> > altered by protection changes") introduced "numa_huge_pte_updates" vmstat
> > entry, trying to capture how many huge ptes (in reality, PMD thps at that
> > time) are marked by NUMA balancing.
> >
> > This patch proposes to remove it for some reasons.
> >
> > Firstly, the name is misleading. We can have more than one way to have a
> > "huge pte" at least nowadays, and that's also the major goal of this patch,
> > where it paves way for PUD handling in change protection code paths.
> >
> > PUDs are coming not only for dax (which has already came and yet broken..),
> > but also for pfnmaps and hugetlb pages. The name will simply stop making
> > sense when PUD will start to be involved in mprotect() world.
> >
> > It'll also make it not reasonable either if we boost the counter for both
> > pmd/puds. In short, current accounting won't be right when PUD comes, so
> > the scheme was only suitable at that point in time where PUD wasn't even
> > possible.
> >
> > Secondly, the accounting was simply not right from the start as long as it
> > was also affected by other call sites besides NUMA. mprotect() is one,
> > while userfaultfd-wp also leverages change protection path to modify
> > pgtables. If it wants to do right it needs to check the caller but it
> > never did; at least mprotect() should be there even in 2013.
> >
> > It gives me the impression that nobody is seriously using this field, and
> > it's also impossible to be serious.
>
> It's weird and the implementation is ugly. The intention really was to only
> consider MM_CP_PROT_NUMA, but that apparently is not the case.
>
> hugetlb/mprotect/... should have never been accounted.
>
> [...]
>
> > diff --git a/mm/vmstat.c b/mm/vmstat.c
> > index 73d791d1caad..53656227f70d 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmstat.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmstat.c
> > @@ -1313,7 +1313,6 @@ const char * const vmstat_text[] = {
> > #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
> > "numa_pte_updates",
> > - "numa_huge_pte_updates",
> > "numa_hint_faults",
> > "numa_hint_faults_local",
> > "numa_pages_migrated",
>
> It's a user-visible update. I assume most tools should be prepared for this
> stat missing (just like handling !CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING).
>
> Apparently it's documented [1][2] for some distros:

Yes, and AFAIU, [2] is a document to explain an issue relevant to numa
balancing, and I'd highly doubt [2] referenced [1] here; even the order of
the parameters are the same to be listed.

>
> "The amount of transparent huge pages that were marked for NUMA hinting
> faults. In combination with numa_pte_updates the total address space that
> was marked can be calculated."
>
> And now I realize that change_prot_numa() would account these PMD updates as
> well in numa_pte_updates and I am confused about the SUSE documentation: "In
> combination with numa_pte_updates" doesn't really apply, right?
>
> At this point I don't know what's right or wrong.

Me neither, even without PUD involvement.

Talking about numa_pte_updates, hugetlb_change_protection() returns "number
of huge ptes", so one 2M hugetlb page is accounted once; while comparing to
the generic THP (change_protection_range()) it's HPAGE_PUD_NR. It'll make
more sense to me if it sticks with PAGE_SIZE. So all these counters look a
bit confusing.

>
> If we'd want to fix it instead, the right thing to do would be doing the
> accounting only with MM_CP_PROT_NUMA. But then, numa_pte_updates is also
> wrongly updated I believe :(

Right.

I don't have a reason to change numa_pte_updates semantics yet so far, but
here there's the problem where numa_huge_pte_updates can be ambiguous when
there is even PUD involved.

In general, I don't know how I should treat this counter in PUD path even
if NUMA isn't involved in dax yet; it can be soon involved if we move on
with using this same path for hugetlb, or when 1G thp can be possible (with
Yu Zhao's TAO?).

One other thing I can do is I drop this patch, ignore NUMA_HUGE_PTE_UPDATES
in PUD dax processing for now. It'll work for this series, but it'll still
be a problem later. I figured maybe we should simply drop it from now.

Thanks,

>
>
> [1] https://documentation.suse.com/de-de/sles/12-SP5/html/SLES-all/cha-tuning-numactl.html
> [2] https://support.oracle.com/knowledge/Oracle%20Linux%20and%20Virtualization/2749259_1.html
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>

--
Peter Xu