On 5/9/22 22:34, Yang Shi wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 9:05 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 4/4/22 22:02, Yang Shi wrote: >> > include/linux/huge_mm.h | 14 ++++++++++++ >> > include/linux/khugepaged.h | 59 ++++++++++++--------------------------------------- >> > include/linux/sched/coredump.h | 3 ++- >> > kernel/fork.c | 4 +--- >> > mm/huge_memory.c | 15 ++++--------- >> > mm/khugepaged.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------- >> > mm/mmap.c | 14 ++++++++---- >> > mm/shmem.c | 12 ----------- >> > 8 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 109 deletions(-) >> >> Resending my general feedback from mm-commits thread to include the >> public ML's: >> >> There's modestly less lines in the end, some duplicate code removed, >> special casing in shmem.c removed, that's all good as it is. Also patch 8/8 >> become quite boring in v3, no need to change individual filesystems and also >> no hook in fault path, just the common mmap path. So I would just handle >> patch 6 differently as I just replied to it, and acked the rest. >> >> That said it's still unfortunately rather a mess of functions that have >> similar names. transhuge_vma_enabled(vma). hugepage_vma_check(vma), >> transparent_hugepage_active(vma), transhuge_vma_suitable(vma, addr)? >> So maybe still some space for further cleanups. But the series is fine as it >> is so we don't have to wait for it now. > > Yeah, I agree that we do have a lot thp checks. Will find some time to > look into it deeper later. Thanks. >> >> We could also consider that the tracking of which mm is to be scanned is >> modelled after ksm which has its own madvise flag, but also no "always" >> mode. What if for THP we only tracked actual THP madvised mm's, and in >> "always" mode just scanned all vm's, would that allow ripping out some code >> perhaps, while not adding too many unnecessary scans? If some processes are > > Do you mean add all mm(s) to the scan list unconditionally? I don't > think it will scale. It might be interesting to find out how many mm's (percentage of all mm's) are typically in the list with "always" enabled. I wouldn't be surprised if it was nearly all of them. Having at least one large enough anonymous area sounds like something all processes would have these days? >> being scanned without any effect, maybe track success separately, and scan >> them less frequently etc. That could be ultimately more efficinet than >> painfully tracking just *eligibility* for scanning in "always" mode? > > Sounds like we need a couple of different lists, for example, inactive > and active? And promote or demote mm(s) between the two lists? TBH I > don't see too many benefits at the moment. Or I misunderstood you? Yeah, something like that. It would of course require finding out whether khugepaged is consuming too much cpu uselessly these days while not processing fast enough mm's where it succeeds more. >> >> Even more radical thing to consider (maybe that's a LSF/MM level topic, too >> bad :) is that we scan pagetables in ksm, khugepaged, numa balancing, soon >> in MGLRU, and I probably forgot something else. Maybe time to think about >> unifying those scanners? > > We do have pagewalk (walk_page_range()) which is used by a couple of > mm stuff, for example, mlock, mempolicy, mprotect, etc. I'm not sure > whether it is feasible for khugepaged, ksm, etc, or not since I didn't > look that hard. But I agree it should be worth looking at. pagewalk is a framework to simplify writing code that processes page tables for a given one-off task, yeah. But this would be something a bit different, e.g. a kernel thread that does the sum of what khugepaged/ksm/etc do. Numa balancing uses task_work instead of kthread so that would require consideration on which mechanism the unified daemon would use. >> >>
