Message-ID: <6c2f3127-9334-85ba-48f6-83a9c87abde0@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2023 09:55:14 +0100
From:   Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To:     "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com>,
        Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Alexander Zhu <alexlzhu@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mm: FLEXIBLE_THP for improved performance

On 10/07/2023 04:03, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com> writes:
> 
>> On 07/07/2023 15:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 07.07.23 15:57, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 01:29:02PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> On 07.07.23 11:52, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/07/2023 09:01, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>>>>> Although we can use smaller page order for FLEXIBLE_THP, it's hard to
>>>>>>> avoid internal fragmentation completely.  So, I think that finally we
>>>>>>> will need to provide a mechanism for the users to opt out, e.g.,
>>>>>>> something like "always madvise never" via
>>>>>>> /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled.  I'm not sure whether it's
>>>>>>> a good idea to reuse the existing interface of THP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't want to tie this to the existing interface, simply because that
>>>>>> implies that we would want to follow the "always" and "madvise" advice too;
>>>>>> That
>>>>>> means that on a thp=madvise system (which is certainly the case for android and
>>>>>> other client systems) we would have to disable large anon folios for VMAs that
>>>>>> haven't explicitly opted in. That breaks the intention that this should be an
>>>>>> invisible performance boost. I think it's important to set the policy for
>>>>>> use of
>>>>>
>>>>> It will never ever be a completely invisible performance boost, just like
>>>>> ordinary THP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Using the exact same existing toggle is the right thing to do. If someone
>>>>> specify "never" or "madvise", then do exactly that.
>>>>>
>>>>> It might make sense to have more modes or additional toggles, but
>>>>> "madvise=never" means no memory waste.
>>>>
>>>> I hate the existing mechanisms.  They are an abdication of our
>>>> responsibility, and an attempt to blame the user (be it the sysadmin
>>>> or the programmer) of our code for using it wrongly.  We should not
>>>> replicate this mistake.
>>>
>>> I don't agree regarding the programmer responsibility. In some cases the
>>> programmer really doesn't want to get more memory populated than requested --
>>> and knows exactly why setting MADV_NOHUGEPAGE is the right thing to do.
>>>
>>> Regarding the madvise=never/madvise/always (sys admin decision), memory waste
>>> (and nailing down bugs or working around them in customer setups) have been very
>>> good reasons to let the admin have a word.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Our code should be auto-tuning.  I posted a long, detailed outline here:
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/Y%2FU8bQd15aUO97vS@casper.infradead.org/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, "auto-tuning" also should be perfect for everybody, but once reality
>>> strikes you know it isn't.
>>>
>>> If people don't feel like using THP, let them have a word. The "madvise" config
>>> option is probably more controversial. But the "always vs. never" absolutely
>>> makes sense to me.
>>>
>>>>> I remember I raised it already in the past, but you *absolutely* have to
>>>>> respect the MADV_NOHUGEPAGE flag. There is user space out there (for
>>>>> example, userfaultfd) that doesn't want the kernel to populate any
>>>>> additional page tables. So if you have to respect that already, then also
>>>>> respect MADV_HUGEPAGE, simple.
>>>>
>>>> Possibly having uffd enabled on a VMA should disable using large folios,
>>>
>>> There are cases where we enable uffd *after* already touching memory (postcopy
>>> live migration in QEMU being the famous example). That doesn't fly.
>>>
>>>> I can get behind that.  But the notion that userspace knows what it's
>>>> doing ... hahaha.  Just ignore the madvise flags.  Userspace doesn't
>>>> know what it's doing.
>>>
>>> If user space sets MADV_NOHUGEPAGE, it exactly knows what it is doing ... in
>>> some cases. And these include cases I care about messing with sparse VM memory :)
>>>
>>> I have strong opinions against populating more than required when user space set
>>> MADV_NOHUGEPAGE.
>>
>> I can see your point about honouring MADV_NOHUGEPAGE, so think that it is
>> reasonable to fallback to allocating an order-0 page in a VMA that has it set.
>> The app has gone out of its way to explicitly set it, after all.
>>
>> I think the correct behaviour for the global thp controls (cmdline and sysfs)
>> are less obvious though. I could get on board with disabling large anon folios
>> globally when thp="never". But for other situations, I would prefer to keep
>> large anon folios enabled (treat "madvise" as "always"),
> 
> If we have some mechanism to auto-tune the large folios usage, for
> example, detect the internal fragmentation and split the large folio,
> then we can use thp="always" as default configuration.  If my memory
> were correct, this is what Johannes and Alexander is working on.

Could you point me to that work? I'd like to understand what the mechanism is.
The other half of my work aims to use arm64's pte "contiguous bit" to tell the
HW that a span of PTEs share the same mapping and is therefore coalesced into a
single TLB entry. The side effect of this, however, is that we only have a
single access and dirty bit for the whole contpte extent. So I'd like to avoid
any mechanism that relies on getting access/dirty at the base page granularity
for a large folio.

> 
>> with the argument that
>> their order is much smaller than traditional THP and therefore the internal
>> fragmentation is significantly reduced.
> 
> Do you have any data for this?

Some; its partly based on intuition that the smaller the allocation unit, the
smaller the internal fragmentation. And partly on peak memory usage data I've
collected for the benchmarks I'm running, comparing baseline-4k kernel with
baseline-16k and baseline-64 kernels along with a 4k kernel that supports large
anon folios (I appreciate that's not exactly what we are talking about here, and
it's not exactly an extensive set of results!):


Kernel Compliation with 8 Jobs:
| kernel        |   peak |
|:--------------|-------:|
| baseline-4k   |   0.0% |
| anonfolio     |   0.1% |
| baseline-16k  |   6.3% |
| baseline-64k  |  28.1% |


Kernel Compliation with 80 Jobs:
| kernel        |   peak |
|:--------------|-------:|
| baseline-4k   |   0.0% |
| anonfolio     |   1.7% |
| baseline-16k  |   2.6% |
| baseline-64k  |  12.3% |



> 
>> I really don't want to end up with user
>> space ever having to opt-in (with MADV_HUGEPAGE) to see the benefits of large
>> anon folios.
>>
>> I still feel that it would be better for the thp and large anon folio controls
>> to be independent though - what's the argument for tying them together?
>>
> 
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists