[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1701101547560.32737@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:52:31 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, thp: add new background defrag option
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > I get very confused by the /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/defrag
> > versus enabled flags, and this may be a terrible, even more confusing,
> > idea: but I've been surprised and sad to see defrag with a "defer"
> > option, but poor enabled without one; and it has crossed my mind that
> > perhaps the peculiar "madvise+defer" syntax in defrag might rather be
> > handled by "madvise" in defrag with "defer" in enabled? Or something
> > like that: 4 x 4 possibilities instead of 5 x 3.
>
> But would all the possibilities make sense? For example, if I saw
> "defer" in enabled, my first expectation would be that it would only use
> khugepaged, and no THP page faults at all - possibly including madvised
> regions.
>
And this is why I've tried to minimize the config requirements and respect
userspace decisions to do MADV_HUGEPAGE, MADV_NOHUGEPAGE, or set/clear
PR_SET_THP_DISABLE because all these system-wide options combined with
userspace syscalls truly seems unmaintainable and waay too confusing to
correctly describe. Owell, I am fine with introducing
yet-another-defrag-mode if it lets us move in a direction that supports
our usecase.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists