Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/dax: Don't enable huge dax mapping by default

["Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>]

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 09:07:13AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:46 AM Aneesh Kumar K.V
> <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/6/19 5:14 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > > On Wed, 06 Mar 2019 14:47:33 +0530
> > > "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> writes:
> > >>
> > >>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 1:40 AM Oliver <oohall@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 7:35 PM Aneesh Kumar K.V
> > >>>> <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Also even if the user decided to not use THP, by
> > >> echo "never" > transparent_hugepage/enabled , we should continue to map
> > >> dax fault using huge page on platforms that can support huge pages.
> > >
> > > Is this a good idea?
> > >
> > > This knob is there for a reason. In some situations having huge pages
> > > can severely impact performance of the system (due to host-guest
> > > interaction or whatever) and the ability to really turn off all THP
> > > would be important in those cases, right?
> > >
> >
> > My understanding was that is not true for dax pages? These are not
> > regular memory that got allocated. They are allocated out of /dev/dax/
> > or /dev/pmem*. Do we have a reason not to use hugepages for mapping
> > pages in that case?
> 
> The problem with the transparent_hugepage/enabled interface is that it
> conflates performing compaction work to produce THP-pages with the
> ability to map huge pages at all.

That's not [entirely] true. transparent_hugepage/defrag gates heavy-duty
compaction. We do only very limited compaction if it's not advised by
transparent_hugepage/defrag.

I believe DAX has to respect transparent_hugepage/enabled. Or not
advertise its huge pages as THP. It's confusing for user.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov