在 2021/2/19 上午6:34, David Rientjes 写道: > On Thu, 18 Feb 2021, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>>>> Hi everybody, >>>>> >>>>> Khugepaged is slow by default, it scans at most 4096 pages every 10s. >>>>> That's normally fine as a system-wide setting, but some applications >>>>> would >>>>> benefit from a more aggressive approach (as long as they are willing to >>>>> pay for it). >>>>> >>>>> Instead of adding priorities for eligible ranges of memory to >>>>> khugepaged, >>>>> temporarily speeding khugepaged up for the whole system, or sharding its >>>>> work for memory belonging to a certain process, one approach would be to >>>>> allow userspace to induce hugepage collapse. >>>>> >>>>> The benefit to this approach would be that this is done in process >>>>> context >>>>> so its cpu is charged to the process that is inducing the collapse. >>>>> Khugepaged is not involved. >>>> >>>> Yes, this makes a lot of sense to me. >>>> >>>>> Idea was to allow userspace to induce hugepage collapse through the new >>>>> process_madvise() call. This allows us to collapse hugepages on behalf >>>>> of >>>>> current or another process for a vectored set of ranges. >>>> >>>> Yes, madvise sounds like a good fit for the purpose. >>> >>> Agreed on both points. >>> >>>>> This could be done through a new process_madvise() mode *or* it could be >>>>> a >>>>> flag to MADV_HUGEPAGE since process_madvise() allows for a flag >>>>> parameter >>>>> to be passed. For example, MADV_F_SYNC. >>>> >>>> Would this MADV_F_SYNC be applicable to other madvise modes? Most >>>> existing madvise modes do not seem to make much sense. We can argue that >>>> MADV_PAGEOUT would guarantee the range was indeed reclaimed but I am not >>>> sure we want to provide such a strong semantic because it can limit >>>> future reclaim optimizations. >>>> >>>> To me MADV_HUGEPAGE_COLLAPSE sounds like the easiest way forward. >>> >>> I guess in the old madvise(2) we could create a new combo of MADV_HUGEPAGE | >>> MADV_WILLNEED with this semantic? But you are probably more interested in >>> process_madvise() anyway. There the new flag would make more sense. But >>> there's >>> also David H.'s proposal for MADV_POPULATE and there might be benefit in >>> considering both at the same time? Should e.g. MADV_POPULATE with >>> MADV_HUGEPAGE >>> have the collapse semantics? But would MADV_POPULATE be added to >>> process_madvise() as well? Just thinking out loud so we don't end up with >>> more >>> flags than necessary, it's already confusing enough as it is. >>> >> >> Note that madvise() eats only a single value, not flags. Combinations as you >> describe are not possible. >> >> Something MADV_HUGEPAGE_COLLAPSE make sense to me that does not need the mmap >> lock in write and does not modify the actual VMA, only a mapping. >> > > Agreed, and happy to see that there's a general consensus for the > direction. Benefit of a new madvise mode is that it can be used for > madvise() as well if you are interested in only a single range of your own > memory and then it doesn't need to reconcile with any of the already > overloaded semantics of MADV_HUGEPAGE. It's a good idea to let process deal with its own THP policy. but current applications will miss the benefit w/o changes, and change is expensive for end users. So except this work, may a per memcg collapse benefit apps and free for them, we often deploy apps in cgroups on server now. Thanks Alex > > Otherwise, process_madvise() can be used for other processes and/or > vectored ranges. > > Song's use case for this to prioritize thp usage is very important for us > as well. I hadn't thought of the madvise(MADV_HUGEPAGE) + > madvise(MADV_HUGEPAGE_COLLAPSE) use case: I was anticipating the latter > would allocate the hugepage with khugepaged's gfp mask so it would always > compact. But it seems like this would actually be better to use the gfp > mask that would be used at fault for the vma and left to userspace to > determine whether that's MADV_HUGEPAGE or not. Makes sense. > > (Userspace could even do madvise(MADV_NOHUGEPAGE) + > madvise(MADV_HUGEPAGE_COLLAPSE) to do the synchronous collapse but > otherwise exclude it from khugepaged's consideration if it were inclined.) > > Two other minor points: > > - Currently, process_madvise() doesn't use the flags parameter at all so > there's the question of whether we need generalized flags that apply to > most madvise modes or whether the flags can be specific to the mode > being used. For example, a natural extension of this new mode would be > to determine the hugepage size if we were ever to support synchronous > collapse into a 1GB gigantic page on x86 (MADV_F_1GB? :) > > - We haven't discussed the future of khugepaged with this new mode: it > seems like we could simply implement khugepaged fully in userspace and > remove it from the kernel? :) >
