On 01/08/2024 17:27, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 01.08.24 18:22, Usama Arif wrote: >> >> >> On 01/08/2024 07:09, Yu Zhao wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 6:54 AM Usama Arif <usamaarif642@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> The current upstream default policy for THP is always. However, Meta >>>> uses madvise in production as the current THP=always policy vastly >>>> overprovisions THPs in sparsely accessed memory areas, resulting in >>>> excessive memory pressure and premature OOM killing. >>>> Using madvise + relying on khugepaged has certain drawbacks over >>>> THP=always. Using madvise hints mean THPs aren't "transparent" and >>>> require userspace changes. Waiting for khugepaged to scan memory and >>>> collapse pages into THP can be slow and unpredictable in terms of performance >>>> (i.e. you dont know when the collapse will happen), while production >>>> environments require predictable performance. If there is enough memory >>>> available, its better for both performance and predictability to have >>>> a THP from fault time, i.e. THP=always rather than wait for khugepaged >>>> to collapse it, and deal with sparsely populated THPs when the system is >>>> running out of memory. >>>> >>>> This patch-series is an attempt to mitigate the issue of running out of >>>> memory when THP is always enabled. During runtime whenever a THP is being >>>> faulted in or collapsed by khugepaged, the THP is added to a list. >>>> Whenever memory reclaim happens, the kernel runs the deferred_split >>>> shrinker which goes through the list and checks if the THP was underutilized, >>>> i.e. how many of the base 4K pages of the entire THP were zero-filled. >>>> If this number goes above a certain threshold, the shrinker will attempt >>>> to split that THP. Then at remap time, the pages that were zero-filled are >>>> not remapped, hence saving memory. This method avoids the downside of >>>> wasting memory in areas where THP is sparsely filled when THP is always >>>> enabled, while still providing the upside THPs like reduced TLB misses without >>>> having to use madvise. >>>> >>>> Meta production workloads that were CPU bound (>99% CPU utilzation) were >>>> tested with THP shrinker. The results after 2 hours are as follows: >>>> >>>> | THP=madvise | THP=always | THP=always >>>> | | | + shrinker series >>>> | | | + max_ptes_none=409 >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Performance improvement | - | +1.8% | +1.7% >>>> (over THP=madvise) | | | >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Memory usage | 54.6G | 58.8G (+7.7%) | 55.9G (+2.4%) >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> max_ptes_none=409 means that any THP that has more than 409 out of 512 >>>> (80%) zero filled filled pages will be split. >>>> >>>> To test out the patches, the below commands without the shrinker will >>>> invoke OOM killer immediately and kill stress, but will not fail with >>>> the shrinker: >>>> >>>> echo 450 > /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/khugepaged/max_ptes_none >>>> mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/test >>>> echo $$ > /sys/fs/cgroup/test/cgroup.procs >>>> echo 20M > /sys/fs/cgroup/test/memory.max >>>> echo 0 > /sys/fs/cgroup/test/memory.swap.max >>>> # allocate twice memory.max for each stress worker and touch 40/512 of >>>> # each THP, i.e. vm-stride 50K. >>>> # With the shrinker, max_ptes_none of 470 and below won't invoke OOM >>>> # killer. >>>> # Without the shrinker, OOM killer is invoked immediately irrespective >>>> # of max_ptes_none value and kill stress. >>>> stress --vm 1 --vm-bytes 40M --vm-stride 50K >>>> >>>> Patches 1-2 add back helper functions that were previously removed >>>> to operate on page lists (needed by patch 3). >>>> Patch 3 is an optimization to free zapped tail pages rather than >>>> waiting for page reclaim or migration. >>>> Patch 4 is a prerequisite for THP shrinker to not remap zero-filled >>>> subpages when splitting THP. >>>> Patches 6 adds support for THP shrinker. >>>> >>>> (This patch-series restarts the work on having a THP shrinker in kernel >>>> originally done in >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1667454613.git.alexlzhu@xxxxxx/. >>>> The THP shrinker in this series is significantly different than the >>>> original one, hence its labelled v1 (although the prerequisite to not >>>> remap clean subpages is the same).) >>>> >>>> Alexander Zhu (1): >>>> mm: add selftests to split_huge_page() to verify unmap/zap of zero >>>> pages >>>> >>>> Usama Arif (3): >>>> Revert "memcg: remove mem_cgroup_uncharge_list()" >>>> Revert "mm: remove free_unref_page_list()" >>>> mm: split underutilized THPs >>>> >>>> Yu Zhao (2): >>>> mm: free zapped tail pages when splitting isolated thp >>>> mm: don't remap unused subpages when splitting isolated thp >>> >>> I would recommend shatter [1] instead of splitting so that >>> 1) whoever underutilized their THPs get punished for the overhead; >>> 2) underutilized THPs are kept intact and can be reused by others. >>> >>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/20240229183436.4110845-3-yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> The objective of this series is to reduce memory usage, while trying to keep the performance benefits you get of using THP=always. Punishing any applications performance is the opposite of what I am trying to do here. >> For e.g. if there is only one main application running in production, and its using majority of the THPs, then reducing its performance doesn't make sense. >> > > I'm not sure if there would really be a performance degradation regarding the THP, after all we zap PTEs either way. > By performance I meant time/CPU used up for migration. > Shattering will take longer because real migration is involved IIUC. > Yes, so thats what I want to avoid. If the system is CPU bound like the production workload I am testing, then spending any cycles on migration is going to make time/CPU performance worse. Also, shattering isn't merged upstream, and it wouldn't make sense to make this series dependent on shattering. >> Also, just going through the commit, and found the line "The advantage of shattering is that it keeps the original THP intact" a bit confusing. I am guessing the THP is freed? i.e. if a 2M THP has 10 non-zero filled base pages and the rest are zero-filled, then after shattering we will have 10*4K memory and not 2M+10*4K? Is it the case the THP is reused at next fault? > > The idea is (as I understand it) to free the full THP abck to the buddy, replacing the individual pieces that are kept to freshly allocated order-0 pages from the buddy. >
