Message-ID: <96625631-ef7d-44a2-ad5f-f7beb64f0ed0@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 09:42:47 +0100
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
 Bang Li <libang.linux@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hughd@...gle.com
Cc: willy@...radead.org, david@...hat.com, wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com,
 ying.huang@...el.com, 21cnbao@...il.com, shy828301@...il.com,
 ziy@...dia.com, ioworker0@...il.com, da.gomez@...sung.com,
 p.raghav@...sung.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/6] mm: shmem: add mTHP support for anonymous shmem

On 05/07/2024 04:01, Baolin Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2024/7/4 22:46, Bang Li wrote:
>> Hi Bao lin,
>>
>> On 2024/7/4 19:15, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    /*
>>>>> +     * Only allow inherit orders if the top-level value is 'force', which
>>>>> +     * means non-PMD sized THP can not override 'huge' mount option now.
>>>>> +     */
>>>>> +    if (shmem_huge == SHMEM_HUGE_FORCE)
>>>>> +        return READ_ONCE(huge_shmem_orders_inherit);
>>>>
>>>> I vaguely recall that we originally discussed that trying to set 'force' on the
>>>> top level control while any per-size controls were set to 'inherit' would be an
>>>> error, and trying to set 'force' on any per-size control except the PMD-size
>>>> would be an error?
>>>
>>> Right.
>>>
>>>> I don't really understand this logic. Shouldn't we just be looking at the
>>>> per-size control settings (or the top-level control as a proxy for every
>>>> per-size control that has 'inherit' set)?
>>>
>>> ‘force’ will apply the huge orders for anon shmem and tmpfs, so now we only
>>> allow pmd-mapped THP to be forced. We should not look at per-size control
>>> settings for tmpfs now (mTHP for tmpfs will be discussed in future).
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then for tmpfs, which doesn't support non-PMD-sizes yet, we just always use the
>>>> PMD-size control for decisions.
>>>>
>>>> I'm also really struggling with the concept of shmem_is_huge() existing along
>>>> side shmem_allowable_huge_orders(). Surely this needs to all be refactored into
>>>> shmem_allowable_huge_orders()?
>>>
>>> I understood. But now they serve different purposes: shmem_is_huge() will be
>>> used to check the huge orders for the top level, for *tmpfs* and anon shmem;
>>> whereas shmem_allowable_huge_orders() will only be used to check the per-size
>>> huge orders for anon shmem (excluding tmpfs now). However, as I plan to add
>>> mTHP support for tmpfs, I think we can perform some cleanups. 
>>
>> Please count me in, I'd be happy to contribute to the cleanup and enhancement
>> process if I can.
> 
> Good. If you have time, I think you can look at the shmem khugepaged issue from
> the previous discussion [1], which I don't have time to look at now.
> 
> "
> (3) khugepaged
> 
> khugepaged needs to handle larger folios properly as well. Until fixed,
> using smaller THP sizes as fallback might prohibit collapsing a
> PMD-sized THP later. But really, khugepaged needs to be fixed to handle
> that.
> "

khugepaged can already collapse "folios of any order less then PMD-size" to
PMD-size, for anon memory. Infact I modified the selftest to be able to test
that in commit 9f0704eae8a4 ("selftests/mm/khugepaged: enlighten for multi-size
THP"). I'd be surprised if khugepaged can't alreay handle the same for shmem?
Although the test will definitely want to be extended to test it.

Thanks,
Ryan

> 
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/f1783ff0-65bd-4b2b-8952-52b6822a0835@redhat.com/T/#u

Powered by blists - more mailing lists