Message-ID: <f1e24131-07b7-c6bf-10ea-8860f055d131@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2023 16:43:29 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Itaru Kitayama <itaru.kitayama@...il.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/9] mm: thp: Add "recommend" option for anon_orders

On 09.10.23 13:45, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 06/10/2023 23:28, Yu Zhao wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 2:08 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 29.09.23 13:44, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>> In addition to passing a bitfield of folio orders to enable for THP,
>>>> allow the string "recommend" to be written, which has the effect of
>>>> causing the system to enable the orders preferred by the architecture
>>>> and by the mm. The user can see what these orders are by subsequently
>>>> reading back the file.
>>>>
>>>> Note that these recommended orders are expected to be static for a given
>>>> boot of the system, and so the keyword "auto" was deliberately not used,
>>>> as I want to reserve it for a possible future use where the "best" order
>>>> is chosen more dynamically at runtime.
>>>>
>>>> Recommended orders are determined as follows:
>>>>     - PMD_ORDER: The traditional THP size
>>>>     - arch_wants_pte_order() if implemented by the arch
>>>>     - PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER: The largest order kept on per-cpu free list
>>>>
>>>> arch_wants_pte_order() can be overridden by the architecture if desired.
>>>> Some architectures (e.g. arm64) can coalsece TLB entries if a contiguous
>>>> set of ptes map physically contigious, naturally aligned memory, so this
>>>> mechanism allows the architecture to optimize as required.
>>>>
>>>> Here we add the default implementation of arch_wants_pte_order(), used
>>>> when the architecture does not define it, which returns -1, implying
>>>> that the HW has no preference.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst |  4 ++++
>>>>    include/linux/pgtable.h                    | 13 +++++++++++++
>>>>    mm/huge_memory.c                           | 14 +++++++++++---
>>>>    3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst
>>>> index 732c3b2f4ba8..d6363d4efa3a 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst
>>>> @@ -187,6 +187,10 @@ pages (=16K if the page size is 4K). The example above enables order-9
>>>>    By enabling multiple orders, allocation of each order will be
>>>>    attempted, highest to lowest, until a successful allocation is made.
>>>>    If the PMD-order is unset, then no PMD-sized THPs will be allocated.
>>>> +It is also possible to enable the recommended set of orders, which
>>>> +will be optimized for the architecture and mm::
>>>> +
>>>> +     echo recommend >/sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/anon_orders
>>>>
>>>>    The kernel will ignore any orders that it does not support so read the
>>>>    file back to determine which orders are enabled::
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/pgtable.h b/include/linux/pgtable.h
>>>> index af7639c3b0a3..0e110ce57cc3 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/pgtable.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/pgtable.h
>>>> @@ -393,6 +393,19 @@ static inline void arch_check_zapped_pmd(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>    }
>>>>    #endif
>>>>
>>>> +#ifndef arch_wants_pte_order
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Returns preferred folio order for pte-mapped memory. Must be in range [0,
>>>> + * PMD_ORDER) and must not be order-1 since THP requires large folios to be at
>>>> + * least order-2. Negative value implies that the HW has no preference and mm
>>>> + * will choose it's own default order.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static inline int arch_wants_pte_order(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +     return -1;
>>>> +}
>>>> +#endif
>>>> +
>>>>    #ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_PTEP_GET_AND_CLEAR
>>>>    static inline pte_t ptep_get_and_clear(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>>>                                       unsigned long address,
>>>> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>> index bcecce769017..e2e2d3906a21 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>> @@ -464,10 +464,18 @@ static ssize_t anon_orders_store(struct kobject *kobj,
>>>>        int err;
>>>>        int ret = count;
>>>>        unsigned int orders;
>>>> +     int arch;
>>>>
>>>> -     err = kstrtouint(buf, 0, &orders);
>>>> -     if (err)
>>>> -             ret = -EINVAL;
>>>> +     if (sysfs_streq(buf, "recommend")) {
>>>> +             arch = max(arch_wants_pte_order(), PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER);
>>>> +             orders = BIT(arch);
>>>> +             orders |= BIT(PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER);
>>>> +             orders |= BIT(PMD_ORDER);
>>>> +     } else {
>>>> +             err = kstrtouint(buf, 0, &orders);
>>>> +             if (err)
>>>> +                     ret = -EINVAL;
>>>> +     }
>>>>
>>>>        if (ret > 0) {
>>>>                orders &= THP_ORDERS_ALL_ANON;
>>>
>>> :/ don't really like that. Regarding my proposal, one could have
>>> something like that in an "auto" setting for the "enabled" value, or a
>>> "recommended" setting [not sure].
>>
>> Me either.
>>
>> Again this is something I call random --  we only discussed "auto",
>> and yes, the commit message above explained why "recommended" here but
>> it has never surfaced in previous discussions, has it?
> 
> The context in which we discussed "auto" was for a future aspiration to
> automatically determine the order that should be used for a given allocation to
> balance perf vs internal fragmentation.
> 
> The case we are talking about here is completely different; I had a pre-existing
> feature from previous versions of the series, which would allow the arch to
> specify its preferred order (originally proposed by Yu, IIRC). In moving the
> allocation size decision to user space, I felt that we still needed a mechanism
> whereby the arch could express its preference. And "recommend" is what I came up
> with.
> 
> All of the friction we are currently having is around this feature, I think?
> Certainly all the links you provided in the other thread all point to
> conversations skirting around it. How about I just drop it for this initial
> patch set? Just let user space decide what sizes it wants (per David's interface
> proposal)? I can see I'm trying to get a square peg into a round hole.

Dropping it for the initial patch set sounds like a very good idea. 
Telling people what to enable initially when they want to play with it 
will work out just fine.

[Ideally, we plan ahead to have such "auto" settings in the future, as I 
expressed.]

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists