[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4y4aht35lkswkaorr36m6276aktp65bywdtnj6sxo7koscj3qp@qpdjv47lc75v>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2025 20:13:08 +0800
From: Vernon Yang <vernon2gm@...il.com>
To: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@...nel.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, ziy@...dia.com,
dev.jain@....com, baohua@...nel.org, lance.yang@...ux.dev,
richard.weiyang@...il.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Vernon Yang <yanglincheng@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] mm: khugepaged: set VM_NOHUGEPAGE flag when
MADV_COLD/MADV_FREE
On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 08:54:33PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
> On 12/29/25 06:51, Vernon Yang wrote:
> > For example, create three task: hot1 -> cold -> hot2. After all three
> > task are created, each allocate memory 128MB. the hot1/hot2 task
> > continuously access 128 MB memory, while the cold task only accesses
> > its memory briefly andthen call madvise(MADV_COLD). However, khugepaged
> > still prioritizes scanning the cold task and only scans the hot2 task
> > after completing the scan of the cold task.
> >
> > So if the user has explicitly informed us via MADV_COLD/FREE that this
> > memory is cold or will be freed, it is appropriate for khugepaged to
> > skip it only, thereby avoiding unnecessary scan and collapse operations
> > to reducing CPU wastage.
> >
> > Here are the performance test results:
> > (Throughput bigger is better, other smaller is better)
> >
> > Testing on x86_64 machine:
> >
> > | task hot2 | without patch | with patch | delta |
> > |---------------------|---------------|---------------|---------|
> > | total accesses time | 3.14 sec | 2.93 sec | -6.69% |
> > | cycles per access | 4.96 | 2.21 | -55.44% |
> > | Throughput | 104.38 M/sec | 111.89 M/sec | +7.19% |
> > | dTLB-load-misses | 284814532 | 69597236 | -75.56% |
> >
> > Testing on qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm:
> >
> > | task hot2 | without patch | with patch | delta |
> > |---------------------|---------------|---------------|---------|
> > | total accesses time | 3.35 sec | 2.96 sec | -11.64% |
> > | cycles per access | 7.29 | 2.07 | -71.60% |
> > | Throughput | 97.67 M/sec | 110.77 M/sec | +13.41% |
> > | dTLB-load-misses | 241600871 | 3216108 | -98.67% |
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vernon Yang <yanglincheng@...inos.cn>
> > ---
>
> As raised in v1, this is not the way to go. Just because something was once
> indicated to be cold does not meant that it will stay like that forever.
>
> Also,
>
> (1) You are turning this into an operation that will perform VMA
> modifications and require the mmap lock in write mode, bad.
>
> (2) You might now create many VMAs, possibly breaking user space, bad.
>
> If user space knows that memory will stay cold, it can use madvise() to
> indicate that these regions are not a good fit for THPs.
>
> But are they really not a good fit? What about smaller-order THPs?
>
> Nobody knows, but changing the behavior like you suggest is definetly bad.
> :)
>
Thank you for review and explanation. I got it.
For MADV_FREE, we will skip the lazy-free folios instead.
For MADV_COLD, it will be removed in the next version.
--
Thanks,
Vernon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists