Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] mm: collect the number of anon mTHP

[Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 8:33 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 8:28 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 18.08.24 09:58, Barry Song wrote:
> > > Hi Andrew, David, Usama,
> > >
> > > I'm attempting to rebase this series on top of Usama's
> > > [PATCH v3 0/6] mm: split underutilized THPs[1]
> > >
> > > However, I feel it is impossible and we might be tackling things
> > > in the wrong order.
> >
> > Is just the ordering suboptimal (which can/will get resolved one way or
> > the other), or is there something fundamental that will make this series
> > here "impossible"?
>
> i think it is just the ordering suboptimal. Ideally, mTHP counters can go
> first, then the new partially_mapped feature will rebase on top of
> mTHP counters.

Sorry, please allow me to ramble a bit more.

The nr_split_deferred counter is straightforward and simple without the
partially_mapped feature. Each time we enter split_list, we increment by
1, and when we leave, we decrement by 1.

With the new partially_mapped feature, we can enter split_list without
actually being partially_mapped. If the MTHP counter series is processed
first, the partially_mapped series can handle all cases while properly
clearing and setting the partially_mapped flag. These flag operations
need to be handled carefully.
Currently, I notice that Usama's series is clearing the flag unconditionally
in all cases.

In simple terms, mTHP counters are just a counting mechanism that
doesn't introduce new features. However, partially_mapped is a new
feature. A better approach might be to handle the counters first, then
ensure that the new feature doesn't break the counter.

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

Thanks
Barry