Hi Hugh,
On 01/31/2013 10:12 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> Hugh Dickins wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>>> From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> Here's first steps towards huge pages in page cache.
>>>>
>>>> The intend of the work is get code ready to enable transparent huge page
>>>> cache for the most simple fs -- ramfs.
>>>>
>>>> It's not yet near feature-complete. It only provides basic infrastructure.
>>>> At the moment we can read, write and truncate file on ramfs with huge pages in
>>>> page cache. The most interesting part, mmap(), is not yet there. For now
>>>> we split huge page on mmap() attempt.
>>>>
>>>> I can't say that I see whole picture. I'm not sure if I understand locking
>>>> model around split_huge_page(). Probably, not.
>>>> Andrea, could you check if it looks correct?
>>>>
>>>> Next steps (not necessary in this order):
>>>> - mmap();
>>>> - migration (?);
>>>> - collapse;
>>>> - stats, knobs, etc.;
>>>> - tmpfs/shmem enabling;
>>>> - ...
>>>>
>>>> Kirill A. Shutemov (16):
>>>> block: implement add_bdi_stat()
>>>> mm: implement zero_huge_user_segment and friends
>>>> mm: drop actor argument of do_generic_file_read()
>>>> radix-tree: implement preload for multiple contiguous elements
>>>> thp, mm: basic defines for transparent huge page cache
>>>> thp, mm: rewrite add_to_page_cache_locked() to support huge pages
>>>> thp, mm: rewrite delete_from_page_cache() to support huge pages
>>>> thp, mm: locking tail page is a bug
>>>> thp, mm: handle tail pages in page_cache_get_speculative()
>>>> thp, mm: implement grab_cache_huge_page_write_begin()
>>>> thp, mm: naive support of thp in generic read/write routines
>>>> thp, libfs: initial support of thp in
>>>> simple_read/write_begin/write_end
>>>> thp: handle file pages in split_huge_page()
>>>> thp, mm: truncate support for transparent huge page cache
>>>> thp, mm: split huge page on mmap file page
>>>> ramfs: enable transparent huge page cache
>>>>
>>>> fs/libfs.c | 54 +++++++++---
>>>> fs/ramfs/inode.c | 6 +-
>>>> include/linux/backing-dev.h | 10 +++
>>>> include/linux/huge_mm.h | 8 ++
>>>> include/linux/mm.h | 15 ++++
>>>> include/linux/pagemap.h | 14 ++-
>>>> include/linux/radix-tree.h | 3 +
>>>> lib/radix-tree.c | 32 +++++--
>>>> mm/filemap.c | 204 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>>> mm/huge_memory.c | 62 +++++++++++--
>>>> mm/memory.c | 22 +++++
>>>> mm/truncate.c | 12 +++
>>>> 12 files changed, 375 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
>>> Interesting.
>>>
>>> I was starting to think about Transparent Huge Pagecache a few
>>> months ago, but then got washed away by incoming waves as usual.
>>>
>>> Certainly I don't have a line of code to show for it; but my first
>>> impression of your patches is that we have very different ideas of
>>> where to start.
> A second impression confirms that we have very different ideas of
> where to start. I don't want to be dismissive, and please don't let
> me discourage you, but I just don't find what you have very interesting.
>
> I'm sure you'll agree that the interesting part, and the difficult part,
> comes with mmap(); and there's no point whatever to THPages without mmap()
> (of course, I'm including exec and brk and shm when I say mmap there).
>
> (There may be performance benefits in working with larger page cache
> size, which Christoph Lameter explored a few years back, but that's a
> different topic: I think 2MB - if I may be x86_64-centric - would not be
> the unit of choice for that, unless SSD erase block were to dominate.)
>
> I'm interested to get to the point of prototyping something that does
> support mmap() of THPageCache: I'm pretty sure that I'd then soon learn
> a lot about my misconceptions, and have to rework for a while (or give
> up!); but I don't see much point in posting anything without that.
> I don't know if we have 5 or 50 places which "know" that a THPage
> must be Anon: some I'll spot in advance, some I sadly won't.
>
> It's not clear to me that the infrastructural changes you make in this
> series will be needed or not, if I pursue my approach: some perhaps as
> optimizations on top of the poorly performing base that may emerge from
> going about it my way. But for me it's too soon to think about those.
>
> Something I notice that we do agree upon: the radix_tree holding the
> 4k subpages, at least for now. When I first started thinking towards
> THPageCache, I was fascinated by how we could manage the hugepages in
> the radix_tree, cutting out unnecessary levels etc; but after a while
> I realized that although there's probably nice scope for cleverness
> there (significantly constrained by RCU expectations), it would only
> be about optimization. Let's be simple and stupid about radix_tree
> for now, the problems that need to be worked out lie elsewhere.
>
>>> Perhaps that's good complementarity, or perhaps I'll disagree with
>>> your approach. I'll be taking a look at yours in the coming days,
>>> and trying to summon back up my own ideas to summarize them for you.
>> Yeah, it would be nice to see alternative design ideas. Looking forward.
>>
>>> Perhaps I was naive to imagine it, but I did intend to start out
>>> generically, independent of filesystem; but content to narrow down
>>> on tmpfs alone where it gets hard to support the others (writeback
>>> springs to mind). khugepaged would be migrating little pages into
>>> huge pages, where it saw that the mmaps of the file would benefit
If add heuristic to adjust khugepaged_max_ptes_none make sense? Reduce
its value if memoy pressure is big and increase it if memory pressure is
small.
>>> (and for testing I would hack mmap alignment choice to favour it).
>> I don't think all fs at once would fly, but it's wonderful, if I'm
>> wrong :)
> You are imagining the filesystem putting huge pages into its cache.
> Whereas I'm imagining khugepaged looking around at mmaped file areas,
> seeing which would benefit from huge pagecache (let's assume offset 0
> belongs on hugepage boundary - maybe one day someone will want to tune
> some files or parts differently, but that's low priority), migrating 4k
> pages over to 2MB page (wouldn't have to be done all in one pass), then
> finally slotting in the pmds for that.
>
> But going this way, I expect we'd have to split at page_mkwrite():
> we probably don't want a single touch to dirty 2MB at a time,
> unless tmpfs or ramfs.
>
>>> I had arrived at a conviction that the first thing to change was
>>> the way that tail pages of a THP are refcounted, that it had been a
>>> mistake to use the compound page method of holding the THP together.
>>> But I'll have to enter a trance now to recall the arguments ;)
>> THP refcounting looks reasonable for me, if take split_huge_page() in
>> account.
> I'm not claiming that the THP refcounting is wrong in what it's doing
> at present; but that I suspect we'll want to rework it for THPageCache.
>
> Something I take for granted, I think you do too but I'm not certain:
> a file with transparent huge pages in its page cache can also have small
> pages in other extents of its page cache; and can be mapped hugely (2MB
> extents) into one address space at the same time as individual 4k pages
> from those extents are mapped into another (or the same) address space.
>
> One can certainly imagine sacrificing that principle, splitting whenever
> there's such a "conflict"; but it then becomes uninteresting to me, too
> much like hugetlbfs. Splitting an anonymous hugepage in all address
> spaces that hold it when one of them needs it split, that has been a
> pragmatic strategy: it's not a common case for forks to diverge like
> that; but files are expected to be more widely shared.
>
> At present THP is using compound pages, with mapcount of tail pages
> reused to track their contribution to head page count; but I think we
> shall want to be able to use the mapcount, and the count, of TH tail
> pages for their original purpose if huge mappings can coexist with tiny.
> Not fully thought out, but that's my feeling.
>
> The use of compound pages, in particular the redirection of tail page
> count to head page count, was important in hugetlbfs: a get_user_pages
> reference on a subpage must prevent the containing hugepage from being
> freed, because hugetlbfs has its own separate pool of hugepages to
> which freeing returns them.
>
> But for transparent huge pages? It should not matter so much if the
> subpages are freed independently. So I'd like to devise another glue
> to hold them together more loosely (for prototyping I can certainly
> pretend we have infinite pageflag and pagefield space if that helps):
> I may find in practice that they're forever falling apart, and I run
> crying back to compound pages; but at present I'm hoping not.
>
> This mail might suggest that I'm about to start coding: I wish that
> were true, but in reality there's always a lot of unrelated things
> I have to look at, which dilute my focus. So if I've said anything
> that sparks ideas for you, go with them.
>
> Hugh
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to [email protected]. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]"> [email protected] </a>