Message-ID: <0ADCB72F-9D63-4202-89C7-D55734804E41@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 11:13:15 -0400
From: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
To: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, david@...hat.com,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net,
 rppt@...nel.org, surenb@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
 baohua@...nel.org, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, riel@...riel.com,
 laoar.shao@...il.com, dev.jain@....com, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
 npache@...hat.com, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
 ryan.roberts@....com, vbabka@...e.cz, jannh@...gle.com,
 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, sj@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com,
 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] prctl: extend PR_SET_THP_DISABLE to optionally
 exclude VM_HUGEPAGE

On 31 Jul 2025, at 8:27, Usama Arif wrote:

> From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>
> People want to make use of more THPs, for example, moving from
> the "never" system policy to "madvise", or from "madvise" to "always".
>
> While this is great news for every THP desperately waiting to get
> allocated out there, apparently there are some workloads that require a
> bit of care during that transition: individual processes may need to
> opt-out from this behavior for various reasons, and this should be
> permitted without needing to make all other workloads on the system
> similarly opt-out.
>
> The following scenarios are imaginable:
>
> (1) Switch from "none" system policy to "madvise"/"always", but keep THPs
>     disabled for selected workloads.
>
> (2) Stay at "none" system policy, but enable THPs for selected
>     workloads, making only these workloads use the "madvise" or "always"
>     policy.
>
> (3) Switch from "madvise" system policy to "always", but keep the
>     "madvise" policy for selected workloads: allocate THPs only when
>     advised.
>
> (4) Stay at "madvise" system policy, but enable THPs even when not advised
>     for selected workloads -- "always" policy.
>
> Once can emulate (2) through (1), by setting the system policy to
> "madvise"/"always" while disabling THPs for all processes that don't want
> THPs. It requires configuring all workloads, but that is a user-space
> problem to sort out.
>
> (4) can be emulated through (3) in a similar way.
>
> Back when (1) was relevant in the past, as people started enabling THPs,
> we added PR_SET_THP_DISABLE, so relevant workloads that were not ready
> yet (i.e., used by Redis) were able to just disable THPs completely. Redis
> still implements the option to use this interface to disable THPs
> completely.
>
> With PR_SET_THP_DISABLE, we added a way to force-disable THPs for a
> workload -- a process, including fork+exec'ed process hierarchy.
> That essentially made us support (1): simply disable THPs for all workloads
> that are not ready for THPs yet, while still enabling THPs system-wide.
>
> The quest for handling (3) and (4) started, but current approaches
> (completely new prctl, options to set other policies per process,
> alternatives to prctl -- mctrl, cgroup handling) don't look particularly
> promising. Likely, the future will use bpf or something similar to
> implement better policies, in particular to also make better decisions
> about THP sizes to use, but this will certainly take a while as that work
> just started.
>
> Long story short: a simple enable/disable is not really suitable for the
> future, so we're not willing to add completely new toggles.
>
> While we could emulate (3)+(4) through (1)+(2) by simply disabling THPs
> completely for these processes, this is a step backwards, because these
> processes can no longer allocate THPs in regions where THPs were
> explicitly advised: regions flagged as VM_HUGEPAGE. Apparently, that
> imposes a problem for relevant workloads, because "not THPs" is certainly
> worse than "THPs only when advised".
>
> Could we simply relax PR_SET_THP_DISABLE, to "disable THPs unless not
> explicitly advised by the app through MAD_HUGEPAGE"? *maybe*, but this
> would change the documented semantics quite a bit, and the versatility
> to use it for debugging purposes, so I am not 100% sure that is what we
> want -- although it would certainly be much easier.
>
> So instead, as an easy way forward for (3) and (4), add an option to
> make PR_SET_THP_DISABLE disable *less* THPs for a process.
>
> In essence, this patch:
>
> (A) Adds PR_THP_DISABLE_EXCEPT_ADVISED, to be used as a flag in arg3
>     of prctl(PR_SET_THP_DISABLE) when disabling THPs (arg2 != 0).
>
>     prctl(PR_SET_THP_DISABLE, 1, PR_THP_DISABLE_EXCEPT_ADVISED).
>
> (B) Makes prctl(PR_GET_THP_DISABLE) return 3 if
>     PR_THP_DISABLE_EXCEPT_ADVISED was set while disabling.
>
>     Previously, it would return 1 if THPs were disabled completely. Now
>     it returns the set flags as well: 3 if PR_THP_DISABLE_EXCEPT_ADVISED
>     was set.
>
> (C) Renames MMF_DISABLE_THP to MMF_DISABLE_THP_COMPLETELY, to express
>     the semantics clearly.
>
>     Fortunately, there are only two instances outside of prctl() code.
>
> (D) Adds MMF_DISABLE_THP_EXCEPT_ADVISED to express "no THP except for VMAs
>     with VM_HUGEPAGE" -- essentially "thp=madvise" behavior
>
>     Fortunately, we only have to extend vma_thp_disabled().
>
> (E) Indicates "THP_enabled: 0" in /proc/pid/status only if THPs are
>     disabled completely
>
>     Only indicating that THPs are disabled when they are really disabled
>     completely, not only partially.
>
>     For now, we don't add another interface to obtained whether THPs
>     are disabled partially (PR_THP_DISABLE_EXCEPT_ADVISED was set). If
>     ever required, we could add a new entry.
>
> The documented semantics in the man page for PR_SET_THP_DISABLE
> "is inherited by a child created via fork(2) and is preserved across
> execve(2)" is maintained. This behavior, for example, allows for
> disabling THPs for a workload through the launching process (e.g.,
> systemd where we fork() a helper process to then exec()).
>
> For now, MADV_COLLAPSE will *fail* in regions without VM_HUGEPAGE and
> VM_NOHUGEPAGE. As MADV_COLLAPSE is a clear advise that user space
> thinks a THP is a good idea, we'll enable that separately next
> (requiring a bit of cleanup first).
>
> There is currently not way to prevent that a process will not issue
> PR_SET_THP_DISABLE itself to re-enable THP. There are not really known
> users for re-enabling it, and it's against the purpose of the original
> interface. So if ever required, we could investigate just forbidding to
> re-enable them, or make this somehow configurable.
>
> Acked-by: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
> Tested-by: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
> Cc: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
> Cc: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
> Cc: Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>
> Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
> Cc: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
> Cc: Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>
> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
> Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> Cc: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
> Cc: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
> Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
> Cc: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
> Cc: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
>
> ---
>
> At first, I thought of "why not simply relax PR_SET_THP_DISABLE", but I
> think there might be real use cases where we want to disable any THPs --
> in particular also around debugging THP-related problems, and
> "never" not meaning ... "never" anymore ever since we add MADV_COLLAPSE.
> PR_SET_THP_DISABLE will also block MADV_COLLAPSE, which can be very
> helpful for debugging purposes. Of course, I thought of having a
> system-wide config option to modify PR_SET_THP_DISABLE behavior, but
> I just don't like the semantics.
>
> "prctl: allow overriding system THP policy to always"[1] proposed
> "overriding policies to always", which is just the wrong way around: we
> should not add mechanisms to "enable more" when we already have an
> interface/mechanism to "disable" them (PR_SET_THP_DISABLE). It all gets
> weird otherwise.
>
> "[PATCH 0/6] prctl: introduce PR_SET/GET_THP_POLICY"[2] proposed
> setting the default of the VM_HUGEPAGE, which is similarly the wrong way
> around I think now.
>
> The ideas explored by Lorenzo to extend process_madvise()[3] and mctrl()[4]
> similarly were around the "default for VM_HUGEPAGE" idea, but after the
> discussion, I think we should better leave VM_HUGEPAGE untouched.
>
> Happy to hear naming suggestions for "PR_THP_DISABLE_EXCEPT_ADVISED" where
> we essentially want to say "leave advised regions alone" -- "keep THP
> enabled for advised regions",
>
> The only thing I really dislike about this is using another MMF_* flag,
> but well, no way around it -- and seems like we could easily support
> more than 32 if we want to (most users already treat it like a proper
> bitmap).
>
> I think this here (modifying an existing toggle) is the only prctl()
> extension that we might be willing to accept. In general, I agree like
> most others, that prctl() is a very bad interface for that -- but
> PR_SET_THP_DISABLE is already there and is getting used.
>
> Long-term, I think the answer will be something based on bpf[5]. Maybe
> in that context, I there could still be value in easily disabling THPs for
> selected workloads (esp. debugging purposes).
>
> Jann raised valid concerns[6] about new flags that are persistent across
> exec[6]. As this here is a relaxation to existing PR_SET_THP_DISABLE I
> consider it having a similar security risk as our existing
> PR_SET_THP_DISABLE, but devil is in the detail.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250507141132.2773275-1-usamaarif642@gmail.com
> [2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250515133519.2779639-2-usamaarif642@gmail.com
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/r/cover.1747686021.git.lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com
> [4] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/85778a76-7dc8-4ea8-8827-acb45f74ee05@lucifer.local
> [5] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250608073516.22415-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com
> [6] https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAG48ez3-7EnBVEjpdoW7z5K0hX41nLQN5Wb65Vg-1p8DdXRnjg@mail.gmail.com
>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst |  5 ++-
>  fs/proc/array.c                    |  2 +-
>  include/linux/huge_mm.h            | 20 +++++++---
>  include/linux/mm_types.h           | 13 +++----
>  include/uapi/linux/prctl.h         | 10 +++++
>  kernel/sys.c                       | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  mm/khugepaged.c                    |  2 +-
>  7 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>

The changes look good to me. Acked-by: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>

Best Regards,
Yan, Zi

Powered by blists - more mailing lists