On 01/07/2024 09:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 01.07.24 10:50, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 01/07/2024 09:48, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 01.07.24 10:40, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>> On 01/07/2024 09:33, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2024/7/1 15:55, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/06/2024 11:49, Bang Li wrote:
>>>>>>> After the commit 7fb1b252afb5 ("mm: shmem: add mTHP support for
>>>>>>> anonymous shmem"), we can configure different policies through
>>>>>>> the multi-size THP sysfs interface for anonymous shmem. But
>>>>>>> currently "THPeligible" indicates only whether the mapping is
>>>>>>> eligible for allocating THP-pages as well as the THP is PMD
>>>>>>> mappable or not for anonymous shmem, we need to support semantics
>>>>>>> for mTHP with anonymous shmem similar to those for mTHP with
>>>>>>> anonymous memory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bang Li <libang.li@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 10 +++++++---
>>>>>>> include/linux/huge_mm.h | 11 +++++++++++
>>>>>>> mm/shmem.c | 9 +--------
>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
>>>>>>> index 93fb2c61b154..09b5db356886 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
>>>>>>> @@ -870,6 +870,7 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> struct vm_area_struct *vma = v;
>>>>>>> struct mem_size_stats mss = {};
>>>>>>> + bool thp_eligible;
>>>>>>> smap_gather_stats(vma, &mss, 0);
>>>>>>> @@ -882,9 +883,12 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>>>>>>> __show_smap(m, &mss, false);
>>>>>>> - seq_printf(m, "THPeligible: %8u\n",
>>>>>>> - !!thp_vma_allowable_orders(vma, vma->vm_flags,
>>>>>>> - TVA_SMAPS | TVA_ENFORCE_SYSFS, THP_ORDERS_ALL));
>>>>>>> + thp_eligible = !!thp_vma_allowable_orders(vma, vma->vm_flags,
>>>>>>> + TVA_SMAPS | TVA_ENFORCE_SYSFS, THP_ORDERS_ALL);
>>>>>>> + if (vma_is_anon_shmem(vma))
>>>>>>> + thp_eligible =
>>>>>>> !!shmem_allowable_huge_orders(file_inode(vma->vm_file),
>>>>>>> + vma, vma->vm_pgoff, thp_eligible);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Afraid I haven't been following the shmem mTHP support work as much as I
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> have liked, but is there a reason why we need a separate function for shmem?
>>>>>
>>>>> Since shmem_allowable_huge_orders() only uses shmem specific logic to
>>>>> determine
>>>>> if huge orders are allowable, there is no need to complicate the
>>>>> thp_vma_allowable_orders() function by adding more shmem related logic, making
>>>>> it more bloated. In my view, providing a dedicated helper
>>>>> shmem_allowable_huge_orders(), specifically for shmem, simplifies the logic.
>>>>
>>>> My point was really that a single interface (thp_vma_allowable_orders)
>>>> should be
>>>> used to get this information. I have no strong opinon on how the implementation
>>>> of that interface looks. What you suggest below seems perfectly reasonable
>>>> to me.
>>>
>>> Right. thp_vma_allowable_orders() might require some care as discussed in other
>>> context (cleanly separate dax and shmem handling/orders). But that would be
>>> follow-up cleanups.
>>
>> Are you planning to do that, or do you want me to send a patch?
>
> I'm planning on looking into some details, especially the interaction with large
> folios in the pagecache. I'll let you know once I have a better idea what
> actually should be done :)
OK great - I'll scrub it from my todo list... really getting things done today :)
