On 11/28/23 07:34, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 28/11/2023 14:09, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 28.11.23 13:15, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 28/11/2023 08:48, David Hildenbrand wrote:
How about we just stop trying to come up with a term for the "small-sized THP"
vs "PMD-sized THP" and instead invent a name that covers ALL THP:
"multi-size THP" vs "PMD-sized THP".
Then in the docs we can talk about how multi-size THP introduces the ability to
allocate memory in blocks that are bigger than a base page but smaller than
traditional PMD-size, in increments of a power-of-2 number of pages.
So you're thinking of something like "multi-size THP" as a feature name, and
stating that for now we limit it to <= PMD size. mTHP would be the short name?
Sure.
Sounds workable to me, too.
For the stats, we'd document that "AnonHugePages" and friends only count
traditional PMD-sized THP for historical reasons -- and that AnonHugePages
should have been called AnonHugePmdMapped (which we could still add as an alias
and document why AnonHugePages is weird).
Sounds good to me.
OK.
Regarding new stats, maybe an interface that indicates the actual sizes would be
best. As discussed, extending the existing single-large-file statistics might
not be possible and we'd have to come up with a new interface, that maybe
completely lacks "AnonHugePages" and directly goes for the individual sizes.
Yes, but I think we are agreed this is future work.
We do want to have at least some way to verify that mTHP is active from
day 0, though.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
