On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 12:52 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 5:34 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 12.08.24 00:49, Barry Song wrote:
> > > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Anon large folios come from three places:
> > > 1. new allocated large folios in PF, they will call folio_add_new_anon_rmap()
> > > for rmap;
> > > 2. a large folio is split into multiple lower-order large folios;
> > > 3. a large folio is migrated to a new large folio.
> > >
> > > In all above three counts, we increase nr_anon by 1;
> > >
> > > Anon large folios might go either because of be split or be put
> > > to free, in these cases, we reduce the count by 1.
> > >
> > > Folios that have been added to the swap cache but have not yet received
> > > an anon mapping won't be counted. This is consistent with the AnonPages
> > > statistics in /proc/meminfo.
> >
> > Thinking out loud, I wonder if we want to have something like that for
> > any anon folios (including small ones).
> >
> > Assume we longterm-pinned an anon folio and unmapped/zapped it. It would
> > be quite interesting to see that these are actually anon pages still
> > consuming memory. Same with memory leaks, when an anon folio doesn't get
> > freed for some reason.
> >
> > The whole "AnonPages" counter thingy is just confusing, it only counts
> > what's currently mapped ... so we'd want something different.
> >
> > But it's okay to start with large folios only, there we have a new
> > interface without that legacy stuff :)
>
> We have two options to do this:
> 1. add a new separate nr_anon_unmapped interface which
> counts unmapped anon memory only
> 2. let the nr_anon count both mapped and unmapped anon
> folios.
>
> I would assume 1 is clearer as right now AnonPages have been
> there for years. and counting all mapped and unmapped together,
> we are still lacking an approach to find out anon memory leak
> problem you mentioned.
>
> We are right now comparing nr_anon(including mapped folios only)
> with AnonPages to get the distribution of different folio sizes in
> performance profiling.
>
> unmapped_nr_anon should be normally always quite small. otherwise,
> something must be wrong.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst | 5 +++++
> > > include/linux/huge_mm.h | 15 +++++++++++++--
> > > mm/huge_memory.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> > > mm/migrate.c | 4 ++++
> > > mm/page_alloc.c | 5 ++++-
> > > mm/rmap.c | 1 +
> > > 6 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst
> > > index 058485daf186..9fdfb46e4560 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst
> > > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst
> > > @@ -527,6 +527,11 @@ split_deferred
> > > it would free up some memory. Pages on split queue are going to
> > > be split under memory pressure, if splitting is possible.
> > >
> > > +nr_anon
> > > + the number of anon huge pages we have in the whole system.
> >
> > "transparent ..." otherwise people might confuse it with anon hugetlb
> > "huge pages" ... :)
> >
> > I briefly tried coming up with a better name than "nr_anon" but failed.
> >
> >
>
> if we might have unmapped_anon counter later, maybe rename it to
> nr_anon_mapped? and the new interface we will have in the future
> might be nr_anon_unmapped?
On second thought, this might be incorrect as well. Concepts like 'anon',
'shmem', and 'file' refer to states after mapping. If an 'anon' has been
unmapped but is still pinned and not yet freed, it isn't technically an
'anon' anymore?
On the other hand, implementing nr_anon_unmapped could be extremely
tricky. I have no idea how to implement it as we are losing those mapping
flags.
However, a page that is read-ahead but not yet mapped can still become
an anon, which seems slightly less tricky to count though seems still
difficult - except anon pages, shmem can be also swapped-backed?
>
> > [...]
> >
> > > @@ -447,6 +449,8 @@ static int __folio_migrate_mapping(struct address_space *mapping,
> > > */
> > > newfolio->index = folio->index;
> > > newfolio->mapping = folio->mapping;
> > > + if (folio_test_anon(folio) && folio_test_large(folio))
> > > + mod_mthp_stat(folio_order(folio), MTHP_STAT_NR_ANON, 1);
> > > folio_ref_add(newfolio, nr); /* add cache reference */
> > > if (folio_test_swapbacked(folio)) {
> > > __folio_set_swapbacked(newfolio);
> > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > index 84a7154fde93..382c364d3efa 100644
> > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > @@ -1084,8 +1084,11 @@ __always_inline bool free_pages_prepare(struct page *page,
> > > (page + i)->flags &= ~PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP;
> > > }
> > > }
> > > - if (PageMappingFlags(page))
> > > + if (PageMappingFlags(page)) {
> > > + if (PageAnon(page) && compound)
> > > + mod_mthp_stat(order, MTHP_STAT_NR_ANON, -1);
> >
> > I wonder if you could even drop the "compound" check. mod_mthp_stat
> > would handle order == 0 just fine. Not that I think it makes much
> > difference.
>
> i think either is fine as mod_mthp_stat will filter out order==0
> right now.
>
> >
> >
> > Nothing else jumped at me.
> >
> > Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
>
> Thanks!
>
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >
> > David / dhildenb
> >
>
> Barry
Thanks
Barry
