From: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: readahead: make thp readahead conditional to mmap_miss logic
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 10:18:08 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3c0169a4-78b3-4deb-b991-14733b5f0aff@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251006015409.342697-1-roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
On 06/10/25 7:24 am, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Commit 4687fdbb805a ("mm/filemap: Support VM_HUGEPAGE for file mappings")
> introduced a special handling for VM_HUGEPAGE mappings: even if the
> readahead is disabled, 1 or 2 HPAGE_PMD_ORDER pages are
> allocated.
>
> This change causes a significant regression for containers with a
> tight memory.max limit, if VM_HUGEPAGE is widely used. Prior to this
> commit, mmap_miss logic would eventually lead to the readahead
> disablement, effectively reducing the memory pressure in the
> cgroup. With this change the kernel is trying to allocate 1-2 huge
> pages for each fault, no matter if these pages are used or not
> before being evicted, increasing the memory pressure multi-fold.
>
> To fix the regression, let's make the new VM_HUGEPAGE conditional
> to the mmap_miss check, but keep independent from the ra->ra_pages.
> This way the main intention of commit 4687fdbb805a ("mm/filemap:
> Support VM_HUGEPAGE for file mappings") stays intact, but the
> regression is resolved.
>
> The logic behind this changes is simple: even if a user explicitly
> requests using huge pages to back the file mapping (using VM_HUGEPAGE
> flag), under a very strong memory pressure it's better to fall back
> to ordinary pages.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
> Cc: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>
> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
>
> --
>
> v2: fixed VM_SEQ_READ handling (by Dev Jain)
>
As you said in a previous mail, we definitely need some other way of measuring
memory pressure here. Since your workload is doing madvise(MADV_HUGEPAGE) (which
means it expects to take advantage of the hugepage by accessing it frequently) and still
getting lots of cache misses, I guess it must be due to swapping out due to
tight memory.max. Anyways, the change looks correct to me.
Reviewed-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-06 4:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-06 1:54 Roman Gushchin
2025-10-06 4:48 ` Dev Jain [this message]
2025-10-06 12:31 ` Jan Kara
2025-10-06 17:44 ` Roman Gushchin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3c0169a4-78b3-4deb-b991-14733b5f0aff@arm.com \
--to=dev.jain@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox