Re: [PATCH] mm/memory-failure: Disable soft offline for HugeTLB pages by default

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 11.09.25 19:56, Luck, Tony wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 10:46:10AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 10.09.25 18:15, Kyle Meyer wrote:
>>> Soft offlining a HugeTLB page reduces the available HugeTLB page pool.
>>> Since HugeTLB pages are preallocated, reducing the available HugeTLB
>>> page pool can cause allocation failures.
>>>
>>> /proc/sys/vm/enable_soft_offline provides a sysctl interface to
>>> disable/enable soft offline:
>>>
>>> 0 - Soft offline is disabled.
>>> 1 - Soft offline is enabled.
>>>
>>> The current sysctl interface does not distinguish between HugeTLB pages
>>> and other page types.
>>>
>>> Disable soft offline for HugeTLB pages by default (1) and extend the
>>> sysctl interface to preserve existing behavior (2):
>>>
>>> 0 - Soft offline is disabled.
>>> 1 - Soft offline is enabled (excluding HugeTLB pages).
>>> 2 - Soft offline is enabled (including HugeTLB pages).
>>>
>>> Update documentation for the sysctl interface, reference the sysctl
>>> interface in the sysfs ABI documentation, and update HugeTLB soft
>>> offline selftests.
>>
>> I'm sure you spotted that the documentation for
>> "/sys/devices/system/memory/soft_offline_pag" resides under "testing".
> 
> But that is only one of several places in the kernel that
> feed into the page offline code.

Right, I can see one more call to soft_offline_page() from 
arch/parisc/kernel/pdt.c.

And there is memory_failure_work_func() that I missed.

So agreed that this goes beyond testing.

It caught my attention because you ended up modifying documentation 
residing in Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-memory-page-offline.

Reading 56374430c5dfc that Kyle pointed out is gets clearer.

So the patch motivation/idea makes sense to me.


I'll note two things:

(1) The interface design is not really extensible. Imagine if we want to 
exclude yet another page type.

Can we maybe add a second interface that defines a filter for types?

Alternatively, you could use all the remaining flags as such a filter.

0 - Soft offline is completely disabled.
1 - Soft offline is enabled except for manually disabled types.

Filter

2 - disable hugetlb.

So value 3 would give you "enable all except hugetlb" etc.

We could add in the future

4 - disable guest_memfd (just some random example)


Then you

2) Changing the semantics of the value "1"

IIUC, you are changing the semantics of value "1". It used to mean 
"SOFT_OFFLINE_ENABLED" now it is "SOFT_OFFLINE_ENABLED_SKIP_HUGETLB", 
which is a change in behavior.

If that is the case, I don't think that's okay.


2) I am not sure about changing the default. That should be an admin/
    distro decision.

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb