On 07.12.23 12:22, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 07/12/2023 11:13, David Hildenbrand wrote:
+
if (!vma->vm_mm) /* vdso */
- return false;
+ return 0;
/*
* Explicitly disabled through madvise or prctl, or some
@@ -88,16 +141,16 @@ bool hugepage_vma_check(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
unsigned long vm_flags,
* */
if ((vm_flags & VM_NOHUGEPAGE) ||
test_bit(MMF_DISABLE_THP, &vma->vm_mm->flags))
- return false;
+ return 0;
/*
* If the hardware/firmware marked hugepage support disabled.
*/
if (transparent_hugepage_flags & (1 <<
TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_UNSUPPORTED))
- return false;
+ return 0;
/* khugepaged doesn't collapse DAX vma, but page fault is fine. */
if (vma_is_dax(vma))
- return in_pf;
+ return in_pf ? orders : 0;
/*
* khugepaged special VMA and hugetlb VMA.
@@ -105,17 +158,29 @@ bool hugepage_vma_check(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
unsigned long vm_flags,
* VM_MIXEDMAP set.
*/
if (!in_pf && !smaps && (vm_flags & VM_NO_KHUGEPAGED))
- return false;
+ return 0;
/*
- * Check alignment for file vma and size for both file and anon vma.
+ * Check alignment for file vma and size for both file and anon vma by
+ * filtering out the unsuitable orders.
*
* Skip the check for page fault. Huge fault does the check in fault
- * handlers. And this check is not suitable for huge PUD fault.
+ * handlers.
*/
- if (!in_pf &&
- !transhuge_vma_suitable(vma, (vma->vm_end - HPAGE_PMD_SIZE)))
- return false;
+ if (!in_pf) {
+ int order = first_order(orders);
+ unsigned long addr;
+
+ while (orders) {
+ addr = vma->vm_end - (PAGE_SIZE << order);
+ if (thp_vma_suitable_orders(vma, addr, BIT(order)))
+ break;
Comment: you'd want a "thp_vma_suitable_order" helper here. But maybe the
compiler is smart enough to optimize the loop and everyything else out.
I'm happy to refactor so that thp_vma_suitable_order() is the basic primitive,
then make thp_vma_suitable_orders() a loop that calls thp_vma_suitable_order()
(that's basically how it is laid out already, just all in one function). Is that
what you are requesting?
You got the spirit, yes.
[...]
+
+static ssize_t thpsize_enabled_store(struct kobject *kobj,
+ struct kobj_attribute *attr,
+ const char *buf, size_t count)
+{
+ int order = to_thpsize(kobj)->order;
+ ssize_t ret = count;
+
+ if (sysfs_streq(buf, "always")) {
+ set_bit(order, &huge_anon_orders_always);
+ clear_bit(order, &huge_anon_orders_inherit);
+ clear_bit(order, &huge_anon_orders_madvise);
+ } else if (sysfs_streq(buf, "inherit")) {
+ set_bit(order, &huge_anon_orders_inherit);
+ clear_bit(order, &huge_anon_orders_always);
+ clear_bit(order, &huge_anon_orders_madvise);
+ } else if (sysfs_streq(buf, "madvise")) {
+ set_bit(order, &huge_anon_orders_madvise);
+ clear_bit(order, &huge_anon_orders_always);
+ clear_bit(order, &huge_anon_orders_inherit);
+ } else if (sysfs_streq(buf, "never")) {
+ clear_bit(order, &huge_anon_orders_always);
+ clear_bit(order, &huge_anon_orders_inherit);
+ clear_bit(order, &huge_anon_orders_madvise);
Note: I was wondering for a second if some concurrent cames could lead to an
inconsistent state. I think in the worst case we'll simply end up with "never"
on races.
You mean if different threads try to write different values to this file
concurrently? Or if there is a concurrent fault that tries to read the flags
while they are being modified?
I thought about what you said first, but what you said last might also apply. As
long as "nothing breaks", all good.
I thought about this for a long time too and wasn't sure what was best. The
existing global enabled store impl clears the bits first then sets the bit. With
this approach you can end up with multiple bits set if there is a race to set
diffierent values, and you can end up with a faulting thread seeing never if it
reads the bits after they have been cleared but before setting them.
Right, but user space is playing stupid games and can win stupid prices. As long
as nothing breaks, we're good.
I decided to set the new bit before clearing the old bits, which is different; A
racing fault will never see "never" but as you say, a race to set the file could
result in "never" being set.
On reflection, it's probably best to set the bit *last* like the global control
does?
Probably might just slap a simple spinlock in there, so at least the writer side
is completely serialized. Then you can just set the bit last. It's unlikely that
readers will actually run into issues, and if they ever would, we could use some
rcu magic to let them read a consistent state.
I'd prefer to leave it as it is now; clear first, set last without any explicit
serialization. I've convinced myself that nothing breaks and its the same
pattern used by the global control so its consistent. Unless you're insisting on
the spin lock?
No, not at all. But it would certainly remove any possible concerns :)
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
