Message-ID: <99b33a29-e97a-4932-8d7a-85bc01885d18@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 11:45:48 +0100
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
 Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>, Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>,
 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>,
 Pankaj Raghav <kernel@...kajraghav.com>, Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] Control folio sizes used for page cache memory

On 17/07/2024 11:31, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 17.07.24 09:12, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> This series is an RFC that adds sysfs and kernel cmdline controls to configure
>> the set of allowed large folio sizes that can be used when allocating
>> file-memory for the page cache. As part of the control mechanism, it provides
>> for a special-case "preferred folio size for executable mappings" marker.
>>
>> I'm trying to solve 2 separate problems with this series:
>>
>> 1. Reduce pressure in iTLB and improve performance on arm64: This is a modified
>> approach for the change at [1]. Instead of hardcoding the preferred executable
>> folio size into the arch, user space can now select it. This decouples the arch
>> code and also makes the mechanism more generic; it can be bypassed (the default)
>> or any folio size can be set. For my use case, 64K is preferred, but I've also
>> heard from Willy of a use case where putting all text into 2M PMD-sized folios
>> is preferred. This approach avoids the need for synchonous MADV_COLLAPSE (and
>> therefore faulting in all text ahead of time) to achieve that.
>>
>> 2. Reduce memory fragmentation in systems under high memory pressure (e.g.
>> Android): The theory goes that if all folios are 64K, then failure to allocate a
>> 64K folio should become unlikely. But if the page cache is allocating lots of
>> different orders, with most allocations having an order below 64K (as is the
>> case today) then ability to allocate 64K folios diminishes. By providing control
>> over the allowed set of folio sizes, we can tune to avoid crucial 64K folio
>> allocation failure. Additionally I've heard (second hand) of the need to disable
>> large folios in the page cache entirely due to latency concerns in some
>> settings. These controls allow all of this without kernel changes.
>>
>> The value of (1) is clear and the performance improvements are documented in
>> patch 2. I don't yet have any data demonstrating the theory for (2) since I
>> can't reproduce the setup that Barry had at [2]. But my view is that by adding
>> these controls we will enable the community to explore further, in the same way
>> that the anon mTHP controls helped harden the understanding for anonymous
>> memory.
>>
>> ---
> 
> How would this interact with other requirements we get from the filesystem (for
> example, because of the device) [1].
> 
> Assuming a device has a filesystem has a min order of X, but we disable anything
>>= X, how would we combine that configuration/information?

Currently order-0 is implicitly the "always-on" fallback order. My thinking was
that with [1], the specified min order just becomes that "always-on" fallback order.

Today:

  orders = file_orders_always() | BIT(0);

Tomorrow:

  orders = (file_orders_always() & ~(BIT(min_order) - 1)) | BIT(min_order);

That does mean that in this case, a user-disabled order could still be used. So
the controls are really hints rather than definitive commands.


> 
> 
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240715094457.452836-2-kernel@pankajraghav.com/T/#u
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists