linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64: Kconfig: enable ARCH_WANTS_THP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f9d1c2d2-a6d9-47b7-9f1d-382a28bb88b8@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 16:32:12 +0800
From: Weilin Tong <tongweilin@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 David Hildenbrand <david@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64: Kconfig: enable ARCH_WANTS_THP_SWAP for all
 pagesizes


在 2026/1/9 07:11, Barry Song 写道:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 7:29 AM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2025 at 07:52:44PM +1300, Barry Song wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2025 at 7:39 PM Weilin Tong
>>> <tongweilin@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>>> Currently, ARCH_WANTS_THP_SWAP was limited to 4K page size ARM64 kernels, but
>>>> large folios requiring swapping also exist in other page size configurations
>>>> (e.g. 64K). Without this config, large folios in these kernels cannot be swapped
>>>> out.
>>>>
>>>> Here we enable ARCH_WANTS_THP_SWAP for all ARM64 page sizes.
>>> I no longer recall why this was not enabled for sizes other than
>>> 4 KB in commit d0637c505f8a ("arm64: enable THP_SWAP for arm64"), but
>>> it appears to be fine, and the swap cluster size should also be
>>> more friendly to PMD alignment.
>> You seemed to be worried about I/O latency in your original post:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220524071403.128644-1-21cnbao@gmail.com/
> Will, thanks for pointing this out! With a 16KB page size, a PMD
> covers 32MB; with 64KB pages, a PMD covers 512MB. So, Weilin, are
> we ready to wait for 32MB or 512MB to be written out before
> memory can be reclaimed? By splitting, we can reclaim memory
> earlier while only part of it has been swapped out.

I got your point. In our production envs using 64K pagesize kernel, we 
only enable 2M and below size

mthp, so swapping out as a whole is a better way. Or maybe we can set 
the SWAPFILE_CLUSTER by arch.

I will do some tests of this concern.

Thanks a lot.

> While splitting down to order-0 is not ideal, splitting to a
> relatively larger order appears to strike a balance between I/O
> latency and swap performance. Anyway, I don't know :-)
>
> Thanks
> Barry