On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 03:46:36PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:

On 12.09.25 15:37, Johannes Weiner wrote:

quoted

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

quoted

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.

Exactly.

And willy suggested something like "eagerness" similar to "swapinness" that
gives us more flexibility when implementing it, including dynamically
adjusting the values in the future.

Ideally we would be able to also apply this to the page faulting paths.
In many cases, there's no good reason to create a THP on the first fault...

quoted

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

IIRC, you create more pressure on the huge entries, where you might have
less TLB entries :) But yes, there can be cases where it is beneficial, if
there is absolutely no memory pressure.

Correct, but it depends on the microarchitecture. For modern x86_64 AMD, it
happens that the L1 TLB entries are shared between 4K/2M/1G. This was not
(is not?) the case for Intel, where e.g back on kabylake, you had separate
entries for 4K/2MB/1GB.

Maybe in the Great Glorious Future (how many of those do we have?!) it would
be a good idea to take this kinds of things into account. Just because we can
map a THP, doesn't mean we should.

Shower thought: it might be in these cases especially where the FreeBSD
reservation system comes in handy - best effort allocating a THP, but not
actually mapping it as such until you really _know_ it is hot - and until
then, memory reclaim can just break your THP down if it really needs to.

-- 
Pedro