On 05/04/2024 11:27, Barry Song wrote:
> From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Profiling a system blindly with mTHP has become challenging due to the
> lack of visibility into its operations. Presenting the success rate of
> mTHP allocations appears to be pressing need.
>
> Recently, I've been experiencing significant difficulty debugging
> performance improvements and regressions without these figures.
> It's crucial for us to understand the true effectiveness of mTHP in
> real-world scenarios, especially in systems with fragmented memory.
>
> This patch sets up the framework for per-order mTHP counters, starting
> with the introduction of anon_alloc and anon_alloc_fallback counters.
> Incorporating additional counters should now be straightforward as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/huge_mm.h | 19 ++++++++++++++++
> mm/huge_memory.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> mm/memory.c | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 69 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/huge_mm.h b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
> index e896ca4760f6..c5d33017a4dd 100644
> --- a/include/linux/huge_mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
> @@ -264,6 +264,25 @@ unsigned long thp_vma_allowable_orders(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> enforce_sysfs, orders);
> }
>
> +enum mthp_stat_item {
> + MTHP_STAT_ANON_ALLOC,
> + MTHP_STAT_ANON_ALLOC_FALLBACK,
> + __MTHP_STAT_COUNT
> +};
> +
> +struct mthp_stat {
> + unsigned long stats[PMD_ORDER + 1][__MTHP_STAT_COUNT];
I saw a fix for this allocation dynamically due to powerpc PMD_ORDER not being
constant. I wonder if ilog2(MAX_PTRS_PER_PTE) would help here?
> +};
> +
> +DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct mthp_stat, mthp_stats);
> +
> +static inline void count_mthp_stat(int order, enum mthp_stat_item item)
I thought we were going to call this always counting up type of stat and event?
"count_mthp_event"? But I'm happy with it as is, personally.
> +{
> + if (unlikely(order > PMD_ORDER))
> + return;
I'm wondering if it also makes sense to ignore order == 0? Although I guess if
called for order-0 its safe since the storage exists and sum_mthp_stat() is
never be called for 0. Ignore this comment :)
> + this_cpu_inc(mthp_stats.stats[order][item]);
> +}
> +
> #define transparent_hugepage_use_zero_page() \
> (transparent_hugepage_flags & \
> (1<<TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_USE_ZERO_PAGE_FLAG))
> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> index 9d4b2fbf6872..5b875f0fc923 100644
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -526,6 +526,46 @@ static const struct kobj_type thpsize_ktype = {
> .sysfs_ops = &kobj_sysfs_ops,
> };
>
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct mthp_stat, mthp_stats) = {{{0}}};
> +
> +static unsigned long sum_mthp_stat(int order, enum mthp_stat_item item)
> +{
> + unsigned long sum = 0;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
What happens if a cpu that was online and collected a bunch of stats gets
offlined? The user will see stats get smaller?
Perhaps this should be for_each_possible_cpu()? Although I'm not sure what
happens to percpu data when a cpu goes offline? Is the data preserved? Or wiped,
or unmapped? dunno. Might we need to rescue stats into a global counter at
offline-time?
> + struct mthp_stat *this = &per_cpu(mthp_stats, cpu);
> +
> + sum += this->stats[order][item];
> + }
> +
> + return sum;
> +}
> +
> +#define DEFINE_MTHP_STAT_ATTR(_name, _index) \
> +static ssize_t _name##_show(struct kobject *kobj, \
> + struct kobj_attribute *attr, char *buf) \
> +{ \
> + int order = to_thpsize(kobj)->order; \
> + \
> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "%lu\n", sum_mthp_stat(order, _index)); \
> +} \
> +static struct kobj_attribute _name##_attr = __ATTR_RO(_name)
Very nice!
> +
> +DEFINE_MTHP_STAT_ATTR(anon_alloc, MTHP_STAT_ANON_ALLOC);
> +DEFINE_MTHP_STAT_ATTR(anon_alloc_fallback, MTHP_STAT_ANON_ALLOC_FALLBACK);
> +
> +static struct attribute *stats_attrs[] = {
> + &anon_alloc_attr.attr,
> + &anon_alloc_fallback_attr.attr,
> + NULL,
> +};
> +
> +static struct attribute_group stats_attr_group = {
> + .name = "stats",
> + .attrs = stats_attrs,
> +};
> +
> static struct thpsize *thpsize_create(int order, struct kobject *parent)
> {
> unsigned long size = (PAGE_SIZE << order) / SZ_1K;
> @@ -549,6 +589,12 @@ static struct thpsize *thpsize_create(int order, struct kobject *parent)
> return ERR_PTR(ret);
> }
>
> + ret = sysfs_create_group(&thpsize->kobj, &stats_attr_group);
> + if (ret) {
> + kobject_put(&thpsize->kobj);
> + return ERR_PTR(ret);
> + }
> +
> thpsize->order = order;
> return thpsize;
> }
> @@ -1050,8 +1096,10 @@ vm_fault_t do_huge_pmd_anonymous_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> folio = vma_alloc_folio(gfp, HPAGE_PMD_ORDER, vma, haddr, true);
> if (unlikely(!folio)) {
> count_vm_event(THP_FAULT_FALLBACK);
> + count_mthp_stat(HPAGE_PMD_ORDER, MTHP_STAT_ANON_ALLOC_FALLBACK);
I think we should aim for the PMD-oder MTHP_STAT_ANON_ALLOC and
MTHP_STAT_ANON_ALLOC_FALLBACK to match THP_FAULT_ALLOC and THP_FAULT_FALLBACK.
Its not currently setup this way...
> return VM_FAULT_FALLBACK;
> }
> + count_mthp_stat(HPAGE_PMD_ORDER, MTHP_STAT_ANON_ALLOC);
> return __do_huge_pmd_anonymous_page(vmf, &folio->page, gfp);
> }
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 649e3ed94487..1723c8ddf9cb 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -4374,8 +4374,10 @@ static struct folio *alloc_anon_folio(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> }
> folio_throttle_swaprate(folio, gfp);
> clear_huge_page(&folio->page, vmf->address, 1 << order);
> + count_mthp_stat(order, MTHP_STAT_ANON_ALLOC);
> return folio;
> }
> + count_mthp_stat(order, MTHP_STAT_ANON_ALLOC_FALLBACK);
...And we should follow the usage same pattern for the smaller mTHP here too.
Which means MTHP_STAT_ANON_ALLOC_FALLBACK should be after the next: label. We
could introduce a MTHP_STAT_ANON_ALLOC_FALLBACK_CHARGE which would only trigger
on a fallback due to charge failure, just like THP_FAULT_FALLBACK_CHARGE?
> next:
> order = next_order(&orders, order);
> }
