On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 02:25:31PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:

On 12.09.25 14:19, Kiryl Shutsemau wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 09:27:55PM -0600, Nico Pache wrote:

quoted

The following series provides khugepaged with the capability to collapse
anonymous memory regions to mTHPs.

To achieve this we generalize the khugepaged functions to no longer depend
on PMD_ORDER. Then during the PMD scan, we use a bitmap to track individual
pages that are occupied (!none/zero). After the PMD scan is done, we do
binary recursion on the bitmap to find the optimal mTHP sizes for the PMD
range. The restriction on max_ptes_none is removed during the scan, to make
sure we account for the whole PMD range. When no mTHP size is enabled, the
legacy behavior of khugepaged is maintained. max_ptes_none will be scaled
by the attempted collapse order to determine how full a mTHP must be to be
eligible for the collapse to occur. If a mTHP collapse is attempted, but
contains swapped out, or shared pages, we don't perform the collapse. It is
now also possible to collapse to mTHPs without requiring the PMD THP size
to be enabled.

When enabling (m)THP sizes, if max_ptes_none >= HPAGE_PMD_NR/2 (255 on
4K page size), it will be automatically capped to HPAGE_PMD_NR/2 - 1 for
mTHP collapses to prevent collapse "creep" behavior. This prevents
constantly promoting mTHPs to the next available size, which would occur
because a collapse introduces more non-zero pages that would satisfy the
promotion condition on subsequent scans.

Hm. Maybe instead of capping at HPAGE_PMD_NR/2 - 1 we can count
all-zeros 4k as none_or_zero? It mirrors the logic of shrinker.

I am all for not adding any more ugliness on top of all the ugliness we 
added in the past.

I will soon propose deprecating that parameter in favor of something 
that makes a bit more sense.

In essence, we'll likely have an "eagerness" parameter that ranges from 
0 to 10. 10 is essentially "always collapse" and 0 "never collapse if 
not all is populated".

In between we will have more flexibility on how to set these values.

Likely 9 will be around 50% to not even motivate the user to set 
something that does not make sense (creep).

One observation we've had from production experiments is that the
optimal number here isn't static. If you have plenty of memory, then
even very sparse THPs are beneficial.

An extreme example: if all your THPs have 2/512 pages populated,
that's still cutting TLB pressure in half!

So in the absence of memory pressure, allocating and collapsing should
optimally be aggressive even on very sparse regions.

On the flipside, if there is memory pressure, TLB benefits are very
quickly drowned out by faults and paging events. And I mean real
memory pressure. If all that's happening is that somebody is streaming
through filesystem data, the optimal behavior is still to be greedy.

Another consideration is that if we need to break large folios, we
should start with colder ones that provide less benefit, and defer the
splitting of hotter ones as long as possible.

Maybe a good direction would be to move splitting out of the shrinker
and tie it to the (refault-aware) anon reclaim. And then instead of a
fixed population threshold, collapse on a pressure gradient that
starts with "no pressure/thrashing and at least two base pages in THP
a region" and ends with "reclaim is splitting everything, back off".