Re: [PATCH v12 mm-new 06/15] khugepaged: introduce collapse_max_ptes_none helper function

[Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>]

(It'd be good if we could keep all the 'solutions' in one thread as I made a
detailed reply there and now all that will get lost across two threads but
*sigh* never mind. Insert rant about email development here.)

On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 06:56:10PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> [...]
>
> >
> > > towards David's earlier simplified approach:
> > > 	max_ptes_none == 511 -> collapse mTHP always
> > > 	max_ptes_none != 511 -> collapse mTHP only if all PTEs are non-none/zero
> >
> > Pretty sure David's suggestion was that max_ptes_none would literally get set to
> > 511 if you specified 511, or 0 if you specified anything else.
>
> We had multiple incarnations of this approach, but the first one really was:
>
> max_ptes_none == 511 -> collapse mTHP always

But won't 511 mean we just 'creep' to maximum collapse again? Does that solve
anything?

> max_ptes_none == 0 -> collapse mTHP only if all non-none/zero
>
> And for the intermediate values
>
> (1) pr_warn() when mTHPs are enabled, stating that mTHP collapse is not
> supported yet with other values

It feels a bit much to issue a kernel warning every time somebody twiddles that
value, and it's kind of against user expectation a bit.

But maybe it's the least worst way of communicating things. It's still
absolutely gross.

> (2) treat it like max_ptes_none == 0 or (maybe better?) just disable mTHP
> collapse

Yeah disabling mTHP collapse for these values seems sane, but it also seems that
we should be capping for this to work correctly no?

Also I think all this probably violates requirements of users who want to have
different behaviour for mTHP and PMD THP.

The default is 511 so we're in creep territory even with the damn default :)

>
>
> I still like that approach because it let's us defer solving the creep
> problem later and doesn't add a silent capping.

I mean it seems you're more or less saying allow creep. Which I'm kind of ok
with for a first pass thing, and defer it for later.

>
> Using intermediate max_ptes_none values are really only reasonable with the
> deferred shrinker today. And that one does not support mTHP even with this
> series, so it's future work either way.

Right, that's a nice fact to be aware of.

>
> --
> Cheers
>
> David / dhildenb
>

Thanks, Lorenzo