Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] add mTHP support for anonymous shmem

[Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>]

On 2024/6/6 16:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 06.06.24 05:31, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2024/6/4 20:05, Daniel Gomez wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 05:45:20PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2024/6/4 16:18, Daniel Gomez wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 01:13:48PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As a default, we should not be using large folios / mTHP for any 
>>>>>>>> shmem,
>>>>>>>> just like we did with THP via shmem_enabled. This is what this 
>>>>>>>> series
>>>>>>>> currently does, and is aprt of the whole mTHP user-space 
>>>>>>>> interface design.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Further, the mTHP controls should control all of shmem, not only
>>>>>>>> "anonymous shmem".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, that's what I thought and in my TODO list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good, it would be helpful to coordinate with Daniel and Pankaj.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've integrated patches 11 and 12 from the lsf RFC thread [1] on 
>>>>> top of Baolin's
>>>>> v3 patches. You may find a version in my integration branch here 
>>>>> [2]. I can
>>>>> attach them here if it's preferred.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] 
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240515055719.32577-1-da.gomez@samsung.com/
>>>>> [2] 
>>>>> https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=a23e7c06-c3b56926-a23ff749-74fe485fb347-371ca2bfd5d9869f&q=1&e=6974304e-a786-4255-93a7-57498540241c&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgitlab.com%2Fdkruces%2Flinux-next%2F-%2Fcommits%2Fnext-20240604-shmem-mthp
>>>>>
>>>>> The point here is to combine the large folios strategy I proposed 
>>>>> with mTHP
>>>>> user controls. Would it make sense to limit the orders to the 
>>>>> mapping order
>>>>> calculated based on the size and index?
>>>>
>>>> IMO, for !anon shmem, this change makes sense to me. We should 
>>>> respect the
>>>> size and mTHP should act as a order filter.
>>>
>>> What about respecing the size when within_size flag is enabled? Then, 
>>> 'always'
>>> would allocate mTHP enabled folios, regardless of the size. And 'never'
>>> would ignore mTHP and size. So, 'never' can be used for this 'safe' 
>>> boot case
>>> mentioned in the discussion.
>>
>> Looks reasonable to me. What do you think, David?
>>
> 
> That mimics existing PMD-THP behavior, right?
> 
> With "within_size", we must not exceed the size, with "always", we may 
> exceed the size.

Yes, I think so.

>> And what about 'advise' option? Silimar to 'within_size'?
> 
> Good question. What's the behavior of PMD-THP? I would assume it behaves 
> like "within_size", because in the common case we mmap (+advise) only 
> within the size of the file, not exceeding it.

Yes, that is also my understanding.

> (the always option, as I learned during the meeting, is primarily 
> helpful when writing to tmpfs files in an append-fashion. With 
> mmap()+madvise() that doesn't quite happen)
>