Message-ID: <CACZaFFNxUiw_S-O-KUUrXonSsa62jwbvDwrRekx++A6xoZ3SAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2026 12:27:32 +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, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vernon Yang <yanglincheng@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-new v4 5/6] mm: khugepaged: skip lazy-free folios at scanning

On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 7:50 PM David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
<david@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On 1/11/26 13:19, 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_FREE). 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_FREE that this memory
> > 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>
> > ---
> >   include/trace/events/huge_memory.h |  1 +
> >   mm/khugepaged.c                    | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> >   2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/trace/events/huge_memory.h b/include/trace/events/huge_memory.h
> > index 3d1069c3f0c5..e3856f8ab9eb 100644
> > --- a/include/trace/events/huge_memory.h
> > +++ b/include/trace/events/huge_memory.h
> > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> >       EM( SCAN_PAGE_LRU,              "page_not_in_lru")              \
> >       EM( SCAN_PAGE_LOCK,             "page_locked")                  \
> >       EM( SCAN_PAGE_ANON,             "page_not_anon")                \
> > +     EM( SCAN_PAGE_LAZYFREE,         "page_lazyfree")                \
> >       EM( SCAN_PAGE_COMPOUND,         "page_compound")                \
> >       EM( SCAN_ANY_PROCESS,           "no_process_for_page")          \
> >       EM( SCAN_VMA_NULL,              "vma_null")                     \
> > diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c
> > index 6df2857d94c6..8a7008760566 100644
> > --- a/mm/khugepaged.c
> > +++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
> > @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ enum scan_result {
> >       SCAN_PAGE_LRU,
> >       SCAN_PAGE_LOCK,
> >       SCAN_PAGE_ANON,
> > +     SCAN_PAGE_LAZYFREE,
> >       SCAN_PAGE_COMPOUND,
> >       SCAN_ANY_PROCESS,
> >       SCAN_VMA_NULL,
> > @@ -1258,6 +1259,7 @@ static enum scan_result hpage_collapse_scan_pmd(struct mm_struct *mm,
> >       pmd_t *pmd;
> >       pte_t *pte, *_pte;
> >       int none_or_zero = 0, shared = 0, referenced = 0;
> > +     int lazyfree = 0;
> >       enum scan_result result = SCAN_FAIL;
> >       struct page *page = NULL;
> >       struct folio *folio = NULL;
> > @@ -1343,6 +1345,21 @@ static enum scan_result hpage_collapse_scan_pmd(struct mm_struct *mm,
> >               }
> >               folio = page_folio(page);
> >
> > +             if (cc->is_khugepaged && !pte_dirty(pteval) &&
> > +                 folio_is_lazyfree(folio)) {
> > +                     ++lazyfree;
> > +
> > +                     /*
> > +                      * The lazyfree folios are reclaimed and become pte_none.
> > +                      * Ensure they do not continue to be collapsed when
> > +                      * skipped ahead.
> > +                      */
> > +                     if ((lazyfree + none_or_zero) > khugepaged_max_ptes_none) {
> > +                             result = SCAN_PAGE_LAZYFREE;
> > +                             goto out_unmap;
>
> I dislike adding another khugepaged_max_ptes_none check. Gah.
>
>
> Can't we should just keep it simple and do
>
> if (!pte_dirty(pteval) && folio_is_lazyfree(folio)) {
>         result = SCAN_PAGE_LAZYFREE;
>         goto out_unmap;
> }

LGTM, I will apply it in the next version. Thank you for review and
suggestions.

> Reasoning: once they are none, we have a zero-filled page that e.g., the
> deferred shrinker can reclaim.
>
> If you collapse with a lazyfree page, that content will never be none
> and the deferred shrinker cannot reclaim them.

Nice! Thank you for explanation.

> So there is a real difference between them being none and them still
> being around.
>
>
> We could also try turning them into none entries here, that is, test of
> we can discard them, to then just threat them like none entries.
>
>
> Why don't we want to similarly handle this in
> __collapse_huge_page_isolate() ?

The same needs to be handled. Sorry, I missed it. I will fix it in
the next version.

--
Thanks,
Vernon

Powered by blists - more mailing lists