On 26.08.22 23:18, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Fri, 2022-08-26 at 12:18 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 25.08.22 23:30, alexlzhu@xxxxxx wrote: >>> From: Alexander Zhu <alexlzhu@xxxxxx> >>> >>> Currently, split_huge_page() does not have a way to identify zero >>> filled >>> pages within the THP. Thus these zero pages get remapped and >>> continue to >>> create memory waste. In this patch, we identify and free tail pages >>> that >>> are zero filled in split_huge_page(). In this way, we avoid mapping >>> these >>> pages back into page table entries and can free up unused memory >>> within >>> THPs. >>> >> >> Isn't this to some degree splitting the THP (PMDs->PTEs + dissolve >> compound page) and then letting KSM replace the zero-filled page by >> the >> shared zeropage? >> > Many systems do not run KSM, though, and even on the systems > where it does, KSM only covers a subset of the memory in the > system. Right, however there seems to be a push from some folks to enable it more widely. > > I could see wanting to maybe consolidate the scanning between > KSM and this thing at some point, if it could be done without > too much complexity, but keeping this change to split_huge_page > looks like it might make sense even when KSM is enabled, since > it will get rid of the unnecessary memory much faster than KSM could. > > Keeping a hundred MB of unnecessary memory around for longer > would simply result in more THPs getting split up, and more > memory pressure for a longer time than we need. Right. I was wondering if we want to map the shared zeropage instead of the "detected to be zero" page, similar to how KSM would do it. For example, with userfaultfd there would be an observable difference. (maybe that's already done in this patch set) -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
