Received: by 2002:a05:7412:da14:b0:e2:908c:2ebd with SMTP id fe20csp1835257rdb; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 04:46:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGYn1ale4Mvh0i049VJUY7ltnLylJGFtqZ/yrHwW13mEIfGOZ4bT/fTXrkmNlz3y7KV0bh/ X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:c946:b0:1b9:e9b2:124b with SMTP id i6-20020a170902c94600b001b9e9b2124bmr13925437pla.64.1696851988463; Mon, 09 Oct 2023 04:46:28 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1696851988; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=U+OBMSFAa8T/vwmI+HzTTYHDGTSZ5pDyYi1K5DuRhfeJOnnKacSPSD79djllP4zR4H PE1lJ1VmHqrEbUM4a/iAfcYmzvJcbvYStTXfbSAcuPp5c3aazwuFPiHr2G5LgWC5qv0K 6Ba8aNVQN4IoEgw3cWHJiwQ/pMgjb8A3IV19hcFF2BtuHCICdNFNVxAHO8wQ1xv8mvQF 4IVGLgU2LcYEI+kw/Iv7vsZaaGqo0kxYl8Wyj/ZYY3e1GJL45Q/y1a6viX1LvZ/eMXpY fO59UZUsiuusQV7No0SjOacC3Tq650Xejzdy7DunY6aOHJEVOgYhyZv17C2UtCW9lqgM K59A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from :references:cc:to:content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version :date:message-id; bh=YDYkEjWKhfelnZPVkzdGKJB09gEDrBQNdxgst2r7xWw=; fh=7qYHDvZuacgZkDwSkoe5zRRzs96GPUWpcXwqBdwWdgs=; b=Dt3J730rBqtHFv+RLrkybA9vw/PLjuCPMds9ibJReeCIPAr4Z/Wst1U7b6TNHOozPG e1PyQ3ngsjuC7vB/ur5/PPmoXtSNAaD+QFyn5GhcZyHrT8pTwprdNxyaIoRoutnO1QFD +hF6UYCCCxVNCca4f216ki4pM187ZnUEG+SsG7/0nzKVvyTPt98aIrXwuqBgngY9UkD4 1yUdANkvd1Hkh9L/0YBC9/4CJFr438clVQnx8hxJ0ktptxJM3ZqCTS28+CXjs55A1G6+ obbgrzPiIKrg4zL+LIW9LXtG3WbfR+K+HQKB3lygQCqwgnTtNsFb396q4vMZ3ybUaGRC bcyw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Return-Path: Received: from agentk.vger.email (agentk.vger.email. [23.128.96.32]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id li11-20020a170903294b00b001c895ddcdcasi5896000plb.544.2023.10.09.04.46.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 09 Oct 2023 04:46:28 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Received: from out1.vger.email (depot.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::3:0]) by agentk.vger.email (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95AB88058B6D; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 04:46:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.10 at agentk.vger.email Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1346222AbjJILpw (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 9 Oct 2023 07:45:52 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52164 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234532AbjJILpu (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Oct 2023 07:45:50 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 188A79E for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 04:45:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B14E1FB; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 04:46:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.57.66.97] (unknown [10.57.66.97]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 205683F762; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 04:45:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <25d1cdee-3da8-4728-aa0d-dc07eb28ea95@arm.com> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 12:45:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/9] mm: thp: Add "recommend" option for anon_orders Content-Language: en-GB To: Yu Zhao , David Hildenbrand Cc: Andrew Morton , Matthew Wilcox , Yin Fengwei , Catalin Marinas , Anshuman Khandual , Yang Shi , "Huang, Ying" , Zi Yan , Luis Chamberlain , Itaru Kitayama , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , John Hubbard , David Rientjes , Vlastimil Babka , Hugh Dickins , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org References: <20230929114421.3761121-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com> <20230929114421.3761121-7-ryan.roberts@arm.com> <2f64809e-0d0d-cc61-71ac-8d9b072efc3a@redhat.com> From: Ryan Roberts In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.8 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on agentk.vger.email Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (agentk.vger.email [0.0.0.0]); Mon, 09 Oct 2023 04:46:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Level: ** On 06/10/2023 23:28, Yu Zhao wrote: > On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 2:08 PM David Hildenbrand wrote: >> >> On 29.09.23 13:44, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>> In addition to passing a bitfield of folio orders to enable for THP, >>> allow the string "recommend" to be written, which has the effect of >>> causing the system to enable the orders preferred by the architecture >>> and by the mm. The user can see what these orders are by subsequently >>> reading back the file. >>> >>> Note that these recommended orders are expected to be static for a given >>> boot of the system, and so the keyword "auto" was deliberately not used, >>> as I want to reserve it for a possible future use where the "best" order >>> is chosen more dynamically at runtime. >>> >>> Recommended orders are determined as follows: >>> - PMD_ORDER: The traditional THP size >>> - arch_wants_pte_order() if implemented by the arch >>> - PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER: The largest order kept on per-cpu free list >>> >>> arch_wants_pte_order() can be overridden by the architecture if desired. >>> Some architectures (e.g. arm64) can coalsece TLB entries if a contiguous >>> set of ptes map physically contigious, naturally aligned memory, so this >>> mechanism allows the architecture to optimize as required. >>> >>> Here we add the default implementation of arch_wants_pte_order(), used >>> when the architecture does not define it, which returns -1, implying >>> that the HW has no preference. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts >>> --- >>> Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst | 4 ++++ >>> include/linux/pgtable.h | 13 +++++++++++++ >>> mm/huge_memory.c | 14 +++++++++++--- >>> 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst >>> index 732c3b2f4ba8..d6363d4efa3a 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst >>> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst >>> @@ -187,6 +187,10 @@ pages (=16K if the page size is 4K). The example above enables order-9 >>> By enabling multiple orders, allocation of each order will be >>> attempted, highest to lowest, until a successful allocation is made. >>> If the PMD-order is unset, then no PMD-sized THPs will be allocated. >>> +It is also possible to enable the recommended set of orders, which >>> +will be optimized for the architecture and mm:: >>> + >>> + echo recommend >/sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/anon_orders >>> >>> The kernel will ignore any orders that it does not support so read the >>> file back to determine which orders are enabled:: >>> diff --git a/include/linux/pgtable.h b/include/linux/pgtable.h >>> index af7639c3b0a3..0e110ce57cc3 100644 >>> --- a/include/linux/pgtable.h >>> +++ b/include/linux/pgtable.h >>> @@ -393,6 +393,19 @@ static inline void arch_check_zapped_pmd(struct vm_area_struct *vma, >>> } >>> #endif >>> >>> +#ifndef arch_wants_pte_order >>> +/* >>> + * Returns preferred folio order for pte-mapped memory. Must be in range [0, >>> + * PMD_ORDER) and must not be order-1 since THP requires large folios to be at >>> + * least order-2. Negative value implies that the HW has no preference and mm >>> + * will choose it's own default order. >>> + */ >>> +static inline int arch_wants_pte_order(void) >>> +{ >>> + return -1; >>> +} >>> +#endif >>> + >>> #ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_PTEP_GET_AND_CLEAR >>> static inline pte_t ptep_get_and_clear(struct mm_struct *mm, >>> unsigned long address, >>> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c >>> index bcecce769017..e2e2d3906a21 100644 >>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c >>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c >>> @@ -464,10 +464,18 @@ static ssize_t anon_orders_store(struct kobject *kobj, >>> int err; >>> int ret = count; >>> unsigned int orders; >>> + int arch; >>> >>> - err = kstrtouint(buf, 0, &orders); >>> - if (err) >>> - ret = -EINVAL; >>> + if (sysfs_streq(buf, "recommend")) { >>> + arch = max(arch_wants_pte_order(), PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER); >>> + orders = BIT(arch); >>> + orders |= BIT(PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER); >>> + orders |= BIT(PMD_ORDER); >>> + } else { >>> + err = kstrtouint(buf, 0, &orders); >>> + if (err) >>> + ret = -EINVAL; >>> + } >>> >>> if (ret > 0) { >>> orders &= THP_ORDERS_ALL_ANON; >> >> :/ don't really like that. Regarding my proposal, one could have >> something like that in an "auto" setting for the "enabled" value, or a >> "recommended" setting [not sure]. > > Me either. > > Again this is something I call random -- we only discussed "auto", > and yes, the commit message above explained why "recommended" here but > it has never surfaced in previous discussions, has it? The context in which we discussed "auto" was for a future aspiration to automatically determine the order that should be used for a given allocation to balance perf vs internal fragmentation. The case we are talking about here is completely different; I had a pre-existing feature from previous versions of the series, which would allow the arch to specify its preferred order (originally proposed by Yu, IIRC). In moving the allocation size decision to user space, I felt that we still needed a mechanism whereby the arch could express its preference. And "recommend" is what I came up with. All of the friction we are currently having is around this feature, I think? Certainly all the links you provided in the other thread all point to conversations skirting around it. How about I just drop it for this initial patch set? Just let user space decide what sizes it wants (per David's interface proposal)? I can see I'm trying to get a square peg into a round hole. > > If so, this reinforces what I said here [1]. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/mm-commits/CAOUHufYEKx5_zxRJkeqrmnStFjR+pVQdpZ40ATSTaxLA_iRPGw@mail.gmail.com/