On 20.01.25 14:37, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 20/01/2025 12:54, David Hildenbrand wrote:
I think the 1 problem that emerged during review of Dev's series, which we don't
have a proper solution to yet, is the issue of "creep", where regions can be
collapsed to progressively higher orders through iterative scans. At each
collapse, the required thresholds (e.g. max_ptes_none) are met, and the collapse
effectively adds more non-none ptes so the next scan will then collapse to even
higher order. Does your solution suffer from this (theoretical/edge case) issue?
If not, how did you solve?
Yes sadly it suffers from the same issue. bringing max_ptes_none much
lower as a default would "help".
Can we just keep it simple and only support max_ptes_none = 511 ("pagefault
behavior" -- PMD_NR_PAGES - 1) or max_ptes_none = 0 ("deferred behavior") and
document that the other weird configurations will make mTHP skip, because "weird
and unexpetced" ? :)
That sounds like a great simplification in principle!
And certainly a much easier to start with :)
If we ever get the request to support something else, maybe that's also
where we can learn *why*, and what we would actually want to do with mTHP.
We would need to consider
the swap and shared tunables too though. Perhaps we can pull a similar trick
with those?
Swapped and shared are a bit more challenging, because they are set to
"/ 2" or "/ 8" heuristics.
One simple starting point here is of course to say "when collapsing
mTHP, all have to be unshared and all have to be swapped in", so to
essentially ignore both tunables (in a memory friendly way, as if they
are set to 0) for mTHP collapse and worry about that later, when really
required.
Two alternatives I discussed with Nico for these (not sure which is
implemented here) is to calculate it proportionally to the folio order
we are collapsing:
Assuming max_ptes_swap = 64 (PMD: 512 PTEs) and we are collapsing a 1
MiB mTHP (256 PTEs), 32 PTEs would be allowed to be swapped out.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
