Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-172679-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <0b3735bc-2ad7-44f8-808b-37fc90d57199@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 12:45:09 +0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] mm: shmem: add multi-size THP sysfs interface for
 anonymous shmem
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
 hughd@google.com
Cc: willy@infradead.org, david@redhat.com, ioworker0@gmail.com,
 wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, ying.huang@intel.com, 21cnbao@gmail.com,
 shy828301@gmail.com, ziy@nvidia.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <cover.1714978902.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
 <6b4afed1ef26dbd08ae9ec58449b329564dcef3e.1714978902.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
 <30329a82-45b9-4e78-8c48-bd56af113786@arm.com>
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
In-Reply-To: <30329a82-45b9-4e78-8c48-bd56af113786@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 2024/5/7 18:52, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 06/05/2024 09:46, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> To support the use of mTHP with anonymous shmem, add a new sysfs interface
>> 'shmem_enabled' in the '/sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/hugepages-kB/'
>> directory for each mTHP to control whether shmem is enabled for that mTHP,
>> with a value similar to the top level 'shmem_enabled', which can be set to:
>> "always", "inherit (to inherit the top level setting)", "within_size", "advise",
>> "never", "deny", "force". These values follow the same semantics as the top
>> level, except the 'deny' is equivalent to 'never', and 'force' is equivalent
>> to 'always' to keep compatibility.
> 
> We decided at [1] to not allow 'force' for non-PMD-sizes.
> 
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/533f37e9-81bf-4fa2-9b72-12cdcb1edb3f@redhat.com/
> 
> However, thinking about this a bit more, I wonder if the decision we made to
> allow all hugepages-xxkB/enabled controls to take "inherit" was the wrong one.
> Perhaps we should have only allowed the PMD-sized enable=inherit (this is just
> for legacy back compat after all, I don't think there is any use case where
> changing multiple mTHP size controls atomically is actually useful). Applying

Agree. This is also our usage of 'inherit'.

> that pattern here, it means the top level can always take "force" without any
> weird error checking. And we would allow "force" on the PMD-sized control but
> not on the others - again this is easy to error check.
> 
> Does this pattern make more sense? If so, is it too late to change
> hugepages-xxkB/enabled interface?

IMO, this sounds reasonable to me. Let's see what others think, David?