Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Message-ID: <53afef72-69a1-4dd7-84d5-a41f5d2996c3@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:29:47 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/9] variable-order, large folios for anonymous memory
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Itaru Kitayama <itaru.kitayama@gmail.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
References: <20230929114421.3761121-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
 <6d89fdc9-ef55-d44e-bf12-fafff318aef8@redhat.com>
 <a7781f13-21ca-48c7-99c4-22beef0400f9@arm.com>
 <fcbe9179-dcd9-4bf8-b1d1-82201880527e@arm.com>
 <a2e11353-fad8-475c-a4d1-dc1de22dde11@redhat.com>
 <CAOUHufa9CyfRaMFXWtFWPG22Z9Zf9hZZWbZdTke6THimtbPzRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ce723223-9751-4d57-af2d-86d30b2dd16a@arm.com>
 <f83b6fcd-71d8-442f-87d9-f95dd2ab2344@redhat.com>
 <644b1519-b44f-4128-8e5e-52ee5e02b404@arm.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Autocrypt: addr=david@redhat.com; keydata=
 xsFNBFXLn5EBEAC+zYvAFJxCBY9Tr1xZgcESmxVNI/0ffzE/ZQOiHJl6mGkmA1R7/uUpiCjJ
 dBrn+lhhOYjjNefFQou6478faXE6o2AhmebqT4KiQoUQFV4R7y1KMEKoSyy8hQaK1umALTdL
 QZLQMzNE74ap+GDK0wnacPQFpcG1AE9RMq3aeErY5tujekBS32jfC/7AnH7I0v1v1TbbK3Gp
 XNeiN4QroO+5qaSr0ID2sz5jtBLRb15RMre27E1ImpaIv2Jw8NJgW0k/D1RyKCwaTsgRdwuK
 Kx/Y91XuSBdz0uOyU/S8kM1+ag0wvsGlpBVxRR/xw/E8M7TEwuCZQArqqTCmkG6HGcXFT0V9
 PXFNNgV5jXMQRwU0O/ztJIQqsE5LsUomE//bLwzj9IVsaQpKDqW6TAPjcdBDPLHvriq7kGjt
 WhVhdl0qEYB8lkBEU7V2Yb+SYhmhpDrti9Fq1EsmhiHSkxJcGREoMK/63r9WLZYI3+4W2rAc
 UucZa4OT27U5ZISjNg3Ev0rxU5UH2/pT4wJCfxwocmqaRr6UYmrtZmND89X0KigoFD/XSeVv
 jwBRNjPAubK9/k5NoRrYqztM9W6sJqrH8+UWZ1Idd/DdmogJh0gNC0+N42Za9yBRURfIdKSb
 B3JfpUqcWwE7vUaYrHG1nw54pLUoPG6sAA7Mehl3nd4pZUALHwARAQABzSREYXZpZCBIaWxk
 ZW5icmFuZCA8ZGF2aWRAcmVkaGF0LmNvbT7CwZgEEwEIAEICGwMGCwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKCwQW
 AgMBAh4BAheAAhkBFiEEG9nKrXNcTDpGDfzKTd4Q9wD/g1oFAl8Ox4kFCRKpKXgACgkQTd4Q
 9wD/g1oHcA//a6Tj7SBNjFNM1iNhWUo1lxAja0lpSodSnB2g4FCZ4R61SBR4l/psBL73xktp
 rDHrx4aSpwkRP6Epu6mLvhlfjmkRG4OynJ5HG1gfv7RJJfnUdUM1z5kdS8JBrOhMJS2c/gPf
 wv1TGRq2XdMPnfY2o0CxRqpcLkx4vBODvJGl2mQyJF/gPepdDfcT8/PY9BJ7FL6Hrq1gnAo4
 3Iv9qV0JiT2wmZciNyYQhmA1V6dyTRiQ4YAc31zOo2IM+xisPzeSHgw3ONY/XhYvfZ9r7W1l
 pNQdc2G+o4Di9NPFHQQhDw3YTRR1opJaTlRDzxYxzU6ZnUUBghxt9cwUWTpfCktkMZiPSDGd
 KgQBjnweV2jw9UOTxjb4LXqDjmSNkjDdQUOU69jGMUXgihvo4zhYcMX8F5gWdRtMR7DzW/YE
 BgVcyxNkMIXoY1aYj6npHYiNQesQlqjU6azjbH70/SXKM5tNRplgW8TNprMDuntdvV9wNkFs
 9TyM02V5aWxFfI42+aivc4KEw69SE9KXwC7FSf5wXzuTot97N9Phj/Z3+jx443jo2NR34XgF
 89cct7wJMjOF7bBefo0fPPZQuIma0Zym71cP61OP/i11ahNye6HGKfxGCOcs5wW9kRQEk8P9
 M/k2wt3mt/fCQnuP/mWutNPt95w9wSsUyATLmtNrwccz63XOwU0EVcufkQEQAOfX3n0g0fZz
 Bgm/S2zF/kxQKCEKP8ID+Vz8sy2GpDvveBq4H2Y34XWsT1zLJdvqPI4af4ZSMxuerWjXbVWb
 T6d4odQIG0fKx4F8NccDqbgHeZRNajXeeJ3R7gAzvWvQNLz4piHrO/B4tf8svmRBL0ZB5P5A
 2uhdwLU3NZuK22zpNn4is87BPWF8HhY0L5fafgDMOqnf4guJVJPYNPhUFzXUbPqOKOkL8ojk
 CXxkOFHAbjstSK5Ca3fKquY3rdX3DNo+EL7FvAiw1mUtS+5GeYE+RMnDCsVFm/C7kY8c2d0G
 NWkB9pJM5+mnIoFNxy7YBcldYATVeOHoY4LyaUWNnAvFYWp08dHWfZo9WCiJMuTfgtH9tc75
 7QanMVdPt6fDK8UUXIBLQ2TWr/sQKE9xtFuEmoQGlE1l6bGaDnnMLcYu+Asp3kDT0w4zYGsx
 5r6XQVRH4+5N6eHZiaeYtFOujp5n+pjBaQK7wUUjDilPQ5QMzIuCL4YjVoylWiBNknvQWBXS
 lQCWmavOT9sttGQXdPCC5ynI+1ymZC1ORZKANLnRAb0NH/UCzcsstw2TAkFnMEbo9Zu9w7Kv
 AxBQXWeXhJI9XQssfrf4Gusdqx8nPEpfOqCtbbwJMATbHyqLt7/oz/5deGuwxgb65pWIzufa
 N7eop7uh+6bezi+rugUI+w6DABEBAAHCwXwEGAEIACYCGwwWIQQb2cqtc1xMOkYN/MpN3hD3
 AP+DWgUCXw7HsgUJEqkpoQAKCRBN3hD3AP+DWrrpD/4qS3dyVRxDcDHIlmguXjC1Q5tZTwNB
 boaBTPHSy/Nksu0eY7x6HfQJ3xajVH32Ms6t1trDQmPx2iP5+7iDsb7OKAb5eOS8h+BEBDeq
 3ecsQDv0fFJOA9ag5O3LLNk+3x3q7e0uo06XMaY7UHS341ozXUUI7wC7iKfoUTv03iO9El5f
 XpNMx/YrIMduZ2+nd9Di7o5+KIwlb2mAB9sTNHdMrXesX8eBL6T9b+MZJk+mZuPxKNVfEQMQ
 a5SxUEADIPQTPNvBewdeI80yeOCrN+Zzwy/Mrx9EPeu59Y5vSJOx/z6OUImD/GhX7Xvkt3kq
 Er5KTrJz3++B6SH9pum9PuoE/k+nntJkNMmQpR4MCBaV/J9gIOPGodDKnjdng+mXliF3Ptu6
 3oxc2RCyGzTlxyMwuc2U5Q7KtUNTdDe8T0uE+9b8BLMVQDDfJjqY0VVqSUwImzTDLX9S4g/8
 kC4HRcclk8hpyhY2jKGluZO0awwTIMgVEzmTyBphDg/Gx7dZU1Xf8HFuE+UZ5UDHDTnwgv7E
 th6RC9+WrhDNspZ9fJjKWRbveQgUFCpe1sa77LAw+XFrKmBHXp9ZVIe90RMe2tRL06BGiRZr
 jPrnvUsUUsjRoRNJjKKA/REq+sAnhkNPPZ/NNMjaZ5b8Tovi8C0tmxiCHaQYqj7G2rgnT0kt
 WNyWQQ==
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <644b1519-b44f-4128-8e5e-52ee5e02b404@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 27.10.23 14:27, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 26/10/2023 16:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I wanted to remind people in the THP cabal meeting, but that either
>>>>> didn't happen or zoomed decided to not let me join :)
>>>
>>> I didn't make it yesterday either - was having to juggle child care.
>>
>> I think it didn't happen, or started quite late (>20 min).
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's been a week since the mm alignment meeting discussion we had around
>>>>>> prerequisites and the ABI. I haven't heard any further feedback on the ABI
>>>>>> proposal, so I'm going to be optimistic and assume that nobody has found any
>>>>>> fatal flaws in it :).
>>>>>
>>>>> After saying in the call probably 10 times that people should comment
>>>>> here if there are reasonable alternatives worth discussing, call me
>>>>> "optimistic" as well; but, it's only been a week and people might still
>>>>> be thinking about this/
>>>>>
>>>>> There were two things discussed in the call:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Yu brought up "lists" so we can have priorities. As briefly discussed
>>>>>      in the  call, this (a) might not be needed right now in an initial
>>>>>      version;  (b) the kernel might be able to handle that (or many cases)
>>>>>      automatically, TBD. Adding lists now would kind-of set the semantics
>>>>>      of that interface in stone. As you describe below, the approach
>>>>>      discussed here could easily be extended to cover priorities, if need
>>>>>      be.
>>>>
>>>> I want to expand on this: the argument that "if you could allocate a
>>>> higher order you should use it" is too simplistic. There are many
>>>> reasons in addition to the one above that we want to "fall back" to
>>>> higher orders, e.g., those higher orders are not on PCP or from the
>>>> local node. When we consider the sequence of orders to try, user
>>>> preference is just one of the parameters to the cost function. The
>>>> bottom line is that I think we should all agree that there needs to be
>>>> a cost function down the road, whatever it looks like. Otherwise I
>>>> don't know how we can make "auto" happen.
>>
>> I agree that there needs to be a cost function, and as pagecache showed that's
>> independent of initial enablement.
>>
>>>
>>> I don't dispute that this sounds like it could be beneficial, but I see it as
>>> research to happen further down the road (as you say), and we don't know what
>>> that research might conclude. Also, I think the scope of this is bigger than
>>> anonymous memory - you would also likely want to look at the policy for page
>>> cache folio order too, since today that's based solely on readahead. So I see it
>>> as an optimization that is somewhat orthogonal to small-sized THP.
>>
>> Exactly my thoughts.
>>
>> The important thing is that we should plan ahead that we still have the option
>> to let the admin configure if we cannot make this work automatically in the kernel.
>>
>> What we'll need, nobody knows. Maybe it's a per-size priority, maybe it's a
>> single global toggle.
>>
>>>
>>> The proposed interface does not imply any preference order - it only states
>>> which sizes the user wants the kernel to select from, so I think there is lots
>>> of freedom to change this down the track if the kernel wants to start using the
>>> buddy allocator's state as a signal to make its decisions.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>>>> Jup, same opinion here. But again, I'm very happy to hear other
>>>>> alternatives and why they are better.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not against David's proposal but I want to hear a lot more about
>>>> "lots of flexibility for growth" before I'm fully convinced.
>>>
>>> My point was that in an abstract sense, there are properties a user may wish to
>>> apply individually to a size, which is catered for by having a per-size
>>> directory into which we can add more files if/when requirements for new per-size
>>> properties arise. There are also properties that may be applied globally, for
>>> which we have the top-level transparent_hugepage directory where properties can
>>> be extended or added.
>>
>> Exactly, well said.
>>
>>>
>>> For your case around tighter integration with the buddy allocator, I could
>>> imagine a per-size file allowing the user to specify if the kernel should allow
>>> splitting a higher order to make a THP of that size (I'm not suggesting that's a
>>> good idea, I'm just pointing out that this sort of thing is possible with the
>>> interface). And we have discussed how the global enabled prpoerty could be
>>> extended to support "auto" [1].
>>>
>>> But perhaps what we really need are lots more ideas for future directions for
>>> small-sized THP to allow us to evaluate this interface more widely.
>>
>> David R. motivated a future size-aware setting of the defrag option. As
>> discussed we might want something similar to shmem_enable. What will happen with
>> khugepaged, nobody knows yet :)
>>
>> I could imagine exposing per-size boolean read-only properties like
>> "native-hw-size" (PMD, cont-pte). But these things require much more thought.
> 
> FWIW, the reason I opted for the "recommend" special case in the v5 posting was
> because that felt like an easy thing to also add to the command line in future.
> Having a separate file, native-hw-size, that the user has to read then enable
> through another file is not very command-line friendly, if you want the
> hw-preferred size(s) enabled from boot.

Jup. I strongly suspect distributions will just have their setup script 
to handle such things, though.

> 
> Maybe the wider observation is "how does the proposed interface translate to the
> kernel command line if needed in future?".

I guess in the distant future, "auto" is what we want.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb