Message-ID: <129379f6-18c7-4d10-8241-8c6c5596d6d5@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 11:19:02 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
Cc: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, Alexei Starovoitov
 <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 Liam Howlett <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, npache@...hat.com,
 ryan.roberts@....com, dev.jain@....com, usamaarif642@...il.com,
 gutierrez.asier@...wei-partners.com, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
 Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
 Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Amery Hung <ameryhung@...il.com>,
 David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 21cnbao@...il.com, Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
 Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, lance.yang@...ux.dev,
 Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
 linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
 "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 mm-new 03/11] mm: thp: add support for BPF based THP
 order selection

On 08.10.25 15:11, Yafang Shao wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 8:07 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 08.10.25 13:27, Zi Yan wrote:
>>> On 8 Oct 2025, at 5:04, Yafang Shao wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 4:28 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08.10.25 10:18, Yafang Shao wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 4:08 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 03.10.25 04:18, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 10:59 PM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +unsigned long bpf_hook_thp_get_orders(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>>>>>> +                                     enum tva_type type,
>>>>>>>>> +                                     unsigned long orders)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> +       thp_order_fn_t *bpf_hook_thp_get_order;
>>>>>>>>> +       int bpf_order;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +       /* No BPF program is attached */
>>>>>>>>> +       if (!test_bit(TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_BPF_ATTACHED,
>>>>>>>>> +                     &transparent_hugepage_flags))
>>>>>>>>> +               return orders;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +       rcu_read_lock();
>>>>>>>>> +       bpf_hook_thp_get_order = rcu_dereference(bpf_thp.thp_get_order);
>>>>>>>>> +       if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!bpf_hook_thp_get_order))
>>>>>>>>> +               goto out;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +       bpf_order = bpf_hook_thp_get_order(vma, type, orders);
>>>>>>>>> +       orders &= BIT(bpf_order);
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +out:
>>>>>>>>> +       rcu_read_unlock();
>>>>>>>>> +       return orders;
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I thought I explained it earlier.
>>>>>>>> Nack to a single global prog approach.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree. We should have the option to either specify a policy globally,
>>>>>>> or more refined for cgroups/processes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's an interesting question if a program would ever want to ship its
>>>>>>> own policy: I can see use cases for that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I agree that we should make it more flexible right from the start.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To achieve per-process granularity, the struct-ops must be embedded
>>>>>> within the mm_struct as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_MM
>>>>>> +struct bpf_mm_ops {
>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_THP
>>>>>> +       struct bpf_thp_ops bpf_thp;
>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>     /*
>>>>>>      * Opaque type representing current mm_struct flag state. Must be accessed via
>>>>>>      * mm_flags_xxx() helper functions.
>>>>>> @@ -1268,6 +1281,10 @@ struct mm_struct {
>>>>>>     #ifdef CONFIG_MM_ID
>>>>>>                    mm_id_t mm_id;
>>>>>>     #endif /* CONFIG_MM_ID */
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_MM
>>>>>> +               struct bpf_mm_ops bpf_mm;
>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>>            } __randomize_layout;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We should be aware that this will involve extensive changes in mm/.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what we do on linux-mm :)
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be great to use Alexei's feedback/experience to come up with
>>>>> something that is flexible for various use cases.
>>>>
>>>> I'm still not entirely convinced that allowing individual processes or
>>>> cgroups to run independent progs is a valid use case. However, since
>>>> we have a consensus that this is the right direction, I will proceed
>>>> with this approach.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So I think this is likely the right direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be great to evaluate which scenarios we could unlock with this
>>>>> (global vs. per-process vs. per-cgroup) approach, and how
>>>>> extensive/involved the changes will be.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Global Approach
>>>>      - Pros:
>>>>        Simple;
>>>>        Can manage different THP policies for different cgroups or processes.
>>>>     - Cons:
>>>>        Does not allow individual processes to run their own BPF programs.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Per-Process Approach
>>>>       - Pros:
>>>>         Enables each process to run its own BPF program.
>>>>       - Cons:
>>>>         Introduces significant complexity, as it requires handling the
>>>> BPF program's lifecycle (creation, destruction, inheritance) within
>>>> every mm_struct.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Per-Cgroup Approach
>>>>       - Pros:
>>>>          Allows individual cgroups to run their own BPF programs.
>>>>          Less complex than the per-process model, as it can leverage the
>>>> existing cgroup operations structure.
>>>>       - Cons:
>>>>          Creates a dependency on the cgroup subsystem.
>>>>          might not be easy to control at the per-process level.
>>>
>>> Another issue is that how and who to deal with hierarchical cgroup, where one
>>> cgroup is a parent of another. Should bpf program to do that or mm code
>>> to do that? I remember hierarchical cgroup is the main reason THP control
>>> at cgroup level is rejected. If we do per-cgroup bpf control, wouldn't we
>>> get the same rejection from cgroup folks?
>>
>> Valid point.
>>
>> I do wonder if that problem was already encountered elsewhere with bpf
>> and if there is already a solution.
> 
> Our standard is to run only one instance of a BPF program type
> system-wide to avoid conflicts. For example, we can't have both
> systemd and a container runtime running bpf-thp simultaneously.

Right, it's a good question how to combine policies, or "who wins".

> 
> Perhaps Alexei can enlighten us, though we'd need to read between his
> characteristically brief lines. ;-)

There might be some insights to be had in the bpf OOM discussion at

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAEf4BzafXv-PstSAP6krers=S74ri1+zTB4Y2oT6f+33yznqsA@mail.gmail.com

I didn't completely read through that, but that discussion also seems to 
be about interaction between cgroups and bpd programs.

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists