From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com>,
Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Alexander Zhu <alexlzhu@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mm: FLEXIBLE_THP for improved performance
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 08:48:16 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87v8ere0j3.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <501d1a6a-c9cf-94c3-b773-c648b944b30f@arm.com> (Ryan Roberts's message of "Mon, 10 Jul 2023 10:25:36 +0100")
Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> writes:
> On 10/07/2023 10:18, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 10/07/2023 04:03, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>> Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/07/2023 15:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>> On 07.07.23 15:57, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 01:29:02PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 07.07.23 11:52, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 07/07/2023 09:01, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Although we can use smaller page order for FLEXIBLE_THP, it's hard to
>>>>>>>>>> avoid internal fragmentation completely. So, I think that finally we
>>>>>>>>>> will need to provide a mechanism for the users to opt out, e.g.,
>>>>>>>>>> something like "always madvise never" via
>>>>>>>>>> /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled. I'm not sure whether it's
>>>>>>>>>> a good idea to reuse the existing interface of THP.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't want to tie this to the existing interface, simply because that
>>>>>>>>> implies that we would want to follow the "always" and "madvise" advice too;
>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>> means that on a thp=madvise system (which is certainly the case for android and
>>>>>>>>> other client systems) we would have to disable large anon folios for VMAs that
>>>>>>>>> haven't explicitly opted in. That breaks the intention that this should be an
>>>>>>>>> invisible performance boost. I think it's important to set the policy for
>>>>>>>>> use of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It will never ever be a completely invisible performance boost, just like
>>>>>>>> ordinary THP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Using the exact same existing toggle is the right thing to do. If someone
>>>>>>>> specify "never" or "madvise", then do exactly that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It might make sense to have more modes or additional toggles, but
>>>>>>>> "madvise=never" means no memory waste.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hate the existing mechanisms. They are an abdication of our
>>>>>>> responsibility, and an attempt to blame the user (be it the sysadmin
>>>>>>> or the programmer) of our code for using it wrongly. We should not
>>>>>>> replicate this mistake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't agree regarding the programmer responsibility. In some cases the
>>>>>> programmer really doesn't want to get more memory populated than requested --
>>>>>> and knows exactly why setting MADV_NOHUGEPAGE is the right thing to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding the madvise=never/madvise/always (sys admin decision), memory waste
>>>>>> (and nailing down bugs or working around them in customer setups) have been very
>>>>>> good reasons to let the admin have a word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our code should be auto-tuning. I posted a long, detailed outline here:
>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/Y%2FU8bQd15aUO97vS@casper.infradead.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, "auto-tuning" also should be perfect for everybody, but once reality
>>>>>> strikes you know it isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If people don't feel like using THP, let them have a word. The "madvise" config
>>>>>> option is probably more controversial. But the "always vs. never" absolutely
>>>>>> makes sense to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I remember I raised it already in the past, but you *absolutely* have to
>>>>>>>> respect the MADV_NOHUGEPAGE flag. There is user space out there (for
>>>>>>>> example, userfaultfd) that doesn't want the kernel to populate any
>>>>>>>> additional page tables. So if you have to respect that already, then also
>>>>>>>> respect MADV_HUGEPAGE, simple.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Possibly having uffd enabled on a VMA should disable using large folios,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are cases where we enable uffd *after* already touching memory (postcopy
>>>>>> live migration in QEMU being the famous example). That doesn't fly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can get behind that. But the notion that userspace knows what it's
>>>>>>> doing ... hahaha. Just ignore the madvise flags. Userspace doesn't
>>>>>>> know what it's doing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If user space sets MADV_NOHUGEPAGE, it exactly knows what it is doing ... in
>>>>>> some cases. And these include cases I care about messing with sparse VM memory :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have strong opinions against populating more than required when user space set
>>>>>> MADV_NOHUGEPAGE.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can see your point about honouring MADV_NOHUGEPAGE, so think that it is
>>>>> reasonable to fallback to allocating an order-0 page in a VMA that has it set.
>>>>> The app has gone out of its way to explicitly set it, after all.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the correct behaviour for the global thp controls (cmdline and sysfs)
>>>>> are less obvious though. I could get on board with disabling large anon folios
>>>>> globally when thp="never". But for other situations, I would prefer to keep
>>>>> large anon folios enabled (treat "madvise" as "always"),
>>>>
>>>> If we have some mechanism to auto-tune the large folios usage, for
>>>> example, detect the internal fragmentation and split the large folio,
>>>> then we can use thp="always" as default configuration. If my memory
>>>> were correct, this is what Johannes and Alexander is working on.
>>>
>>> Could you point me to that work? I'd like to understand what the mechanism is.
>>> The other half of my work aims to use arm64's pte "contiguous bit" to tell the
>>> HW that a span of PTEs share the same mapping and is therefore coalesced into a
>>> single TLB entry. The side effect of this, however, is that we only have a
>>> single access and dirty bit for the whole contpte extent. So I'd like to avoid
>>> any mechanism that relies on getting access/dirty at the base page granularity
>>> for a large folio.
>>
>> Please take a look at the THP shrinker patchset,
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/cover.1667454613.git.alexlzhu@fb.com/
>
> Thanks!
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> with the argument that
>>>>> their order is much smaller than traditional THP and therefore the internal
>>>>> fragmentation is significantly reduced.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any data for this?
>>>
>>> Some; its partly based on intuition that the smaller the allocation unit, the
>>> smaller the internal fragmentation. And partly on peak memory usage data I've
>>> collected for the benchmarks I'm running, comparing baseline-4k kernel with
>>> baseline-16k and baseline-64 kernels along with a 4k kernel that supports large
>>> anon folios (I appreciate that's not exactly what we are talking about here, and
>>> it's not exactly an extensive set of results!):
>>>
>>>
>>> Kernel Compliation with 8 Jobs:
>>> | kernel | peak |
>>> |:--------------|-------:|
>>> | baseline-4k | 0.0% |
>>> | anonfolio | 0.1% |
>>> | baseline-16k | 6.3% |
>>> | baseline-64k | 28.1% |
>>>
>>>
>>> Kernel Compliation with 80 Jobs:
>>> | kernel | peak |
>>> |:--------------|-------:|
>>> | baseline-4k | 0.0% |
>>> | anonfolio | 1.7% |
>>> | baseline-16k | 2.6% |
>>> | baseline-64k | 12.3% |
>>>
>>
>> Why is anonfolio better than baseline-64k if you always allocate 64k
>> anonymous folio? Because page cache uses 64k in baseline-64k?
>
> No, because the VMA boundaries are aligned to 4K and not 64K. Large Anon Folios
> only allocates a 64K folio if it does not breach the bounds of the VMA (and if
> it doesn't overlap other allocated PTEs).
Thanks for explanation!
We will use more memory for file cache too for baseline-64k, right? So,
you observed much more anonymous pages, but not so for file cache pages?
>>
>> We may need to test some workloads with sparse access patterns too.
>
> Yes, I agree if you have a workload with a pathalogical memory access pattern
> where it writes to addresses with a stride of 64K, all contained in a single
> VMA, then you will end up allocating 16x the memory. This is obviously an
> unrealistic extreme though.
I think that there should be some realistic workload which has sparse
access patterns.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
>>
>>>>
>>>>> I really don't want to end up with user
>>>>> space ever having to opt-in (with MADV_HUGEPAGE) to see the benefits of large
>>>>> anon folios.
>>>>>
>>>>> I still feel that it would be better for the thp and large anon folio controls
>>>>> to be independent though - what's the argument for tying them together?
>>>>>
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-11 0:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 84+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-03 13:53 [PATCH v2 0/5] variable-order, large folios for anonymous memory Ryan Roberts
2023-07-03 13:53 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] mm: Non-pmd-mappable, large folios for folio_add_new_anon_rmap() Ryan Roberts
2023-07-03 19:05 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-04 2:13 ` Yin, Fengwei
2023-07-04 11:19 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-04 2:14 ` Yin, Fengwei
2023-07-03 13:53 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: Allow deferred splitting of arbitrary large anon folios Ryan Roberts
2023-07-07 8:21 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-07 9:42 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-10 5:37 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-10 8:29 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-10 9:01 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-10 9:39 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-11 1:56 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-03 13:53 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] mm: Default implementation of arch_wants_pte_order() Ryan Roberts
2023-07-03 19:50 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-04 13:20 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-05 2:07 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-05 9:11 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-05 17:24 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-05 18:01 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-06 19:33 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-07-07 10:00 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-04 2:22 ` Yin, Fengwei
2023-07-04 3:02 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-04 3:59 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-04 5:22 ` Yin, Fengwei
2023-07-04 5:42 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-04 12:36 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-04 13:23 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-05 1:40 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-05 1:23 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-05 2:18 ` Yin Fengwei
2023-07-03 13:53 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] mm: FLEXIBLE_THP for improved performance Ryan Roberts
2023-07-03 15:51 ` kernel test robot
2023-07-03 16:01 ` kernel test robot
2023-07-04 1:35 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-04 14:08 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-04 23:47 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-04 3:45 ` Yin, Fengwei
2023-07-04 14:20 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-04 23:35 ` Yin Fengwei
2023-07-04 23:57 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-07-05 9:54 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-05 12:08 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-07-07 8:01 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-07 9:52 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-07 11:29 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-07 13:57 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-07-07 14:07 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-07 15:13 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-07 16:06 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-07 16:22 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-07 19:06 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-10 8:41 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-10 3:03 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-10 8:55 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-10 9:18 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-10 9:25 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-11 0:48 ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2023-07-10 2:49 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-03 13:53 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] arm64: mm: Override arch_wants_pte_order() Ryan Roberts
2023-07-03 20:02 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-04 2:18 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] variable-order, large folios for anonymous memory Yu Zhao
2023-07-04 6:22 ` Yin, Fengwei
2023-07-04 7:11 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-04 15:36 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-04 23:52 ` Yin Fengwei
2023-07-05 0:21 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-05 10:16 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-05 19:00 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-05 19:38 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-06 8:02 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-07 11:40 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-07 13:12 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-07-07 13:24 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-10 10:07 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-10 16:57 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-07-10 16:53 ` Zi Yan
2023-07-19 15:49 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-19 16:05 ` Zi Yan
2023-07-19 18:37 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-11 21:11 ` Luis Chamberlain
2023-07-11 21:59 ` Matthew Wilcox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87v8ere0j3.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com \
--to=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alexlzhu@fb.com \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=yuzhao@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).