Re: [PATCH v6 0/9] variable-order, large folios for anonymous memory

[David Hildenbrand]

[...]

> > > 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.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb