Message-ID: <abe284a4-db5c-4a5f-b2fd-e28e1ab93ed1@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 11:10:29 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
 hughd@...gle.com
Cc: lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, npache@...hat.com,
 dev.jain@....com, ziy@...dia.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] fix MADV_COLLAPSE issue if THP settings are disabled

On 30.05.25 10:59, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 30/05/2025 09:44, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 30.05.25 10:04, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> On 29/05/2025 09:23, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>> As we discussed in the previous thread [1], the MADV_COLLAPSE will ignore
>>>> the system-wide anon/shmem THP sysfs settings, which means that even though
>>>> we have disabled the anon/shmem THP configuration, MADV_COLLAPSE will still
>>>> attempt to collapse into a anon/shmem THP. This violates the rule we have
>>>> agreed upon: never means never. This patch set will address this issue.
>>>
>>> This is a drive-by comment from me without having the previous context, but...
>>>
>>> Surely MADV_COLLAPSE *should* ignore the THP sysfs settings? It's a deliberate
>>> user-initiated, synchonous request to use huge pages for a range of memory.
>>> There is nothing *transparent* about it, it just happens to be implemented using
>>> the same logic that THP uses.
>>>
>>> I always thought this was a deliberate design decision.
>>
>> If the admin said "never", then why should a user be able to overwrite that?
> 
> Well my interpretation would be that the admin is saying never *transparently*
> give anyone any hugepages; on balance it does more harm than good for my
> workloads. The toggle is called transparent_hugepage/enabled, after all.

I'd say it's "enabling transparent huge pages" not "transparently 
enabling huge pages". After all, these things are ... transparent huge 
pages.

But yeah, it's confusing.

> 
> Whereas MADV_COLLAPSE is deliberately applied to a specific region at an
> opportune moment in time, presumably because the user knows that the region
> *will* benefit and because that point in the execution is not sensitive to latency.

Not sure if MADV_HUGEPAGE is really *that* different.

> 
> I see them as logically separate.
> 
>>
>> The design decision I recall is that if VM_NOHUGEPAGE is set, we'll ignore that.
>> Because that was set by the app itself (MADV_NOHUEPAGE).
> 
> Hmm, ok. My instinct would have been the opposite; MADV_NOHUGEPAGE means "I
> don't want the risk of latency spikes and memory bloat that THP can cause". Not
> "ignore my explicit requests to MADV_COLLAPSE".
> 
> But if that descision was already taken and that's the current behavior then I
> agree we have an inconsistency with respect to the sysfs control.
> 
> Perhaps we should be guided by real world usage - AIUI there is a cloud that
> disables THP at system level today (Google?).
The use case I am aware of for disabling it for debugging purposes. 
Saved us quite some headake in the past at customer sites for 
troubleshooting + workarounds ...


Let's take a look at the man page:

MADV_COLLAPSE is  independent  of  any  sysfs  (see  sysfs(5))  setting 
under  /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage, both in terms of determining 
THP eligibility, and allocation semantics.

I recall we discussed that it should ignore the max_ptes_none/swap/shared.

But "any" setting would include "enable" ...

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists