Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] binfmt_elf: Align eligible read-only PT_LOAD segments to PMD_SIZE for THP

[Usama Arif]

On 13/03/2026 11:41, Baolin Wang wrote:
> CC Usama
> 
> On 3/10/26 11:11 AM, WANG Rui wrote:
>> Changes since [v3]:
>> * Fixed compilation failure under !CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE.
>> * No functional changes otherwise.
>>
>> Changes since [v2]:
>> * Renamed align_to_pmd() to should_align_to_pmd().
>> * Added benchmark results to the commit message.
>>
>> Changes since [v1]:
>> * Dropped the Kconfig option CONFIG_ELF_RO_LOAD_THP_ALIGNMENT.
>> * Moved the alignment logic into a helper align_to_pmd() for clarity.
>> * Improved the comment explaining why we skip the optimization
>>    when PMD_SIZE > 32MB.
>>
>> When Transparent Huge Pages (THP) are enabled in "always" mode,
>> file-backed read-only mappings can be backed by PMD-sized huge pages
>> if they meet the alignment and size requirements.
>>
>> For ELF executables loaded by the kernel ELF binary loader, PT_LOAD
>> segments are normally aligned according to p_align, which is often
>> only page-sized. As a result, large read-only segments that are
>> otherwise eligible may fail to be mapped using PMD-sized THP.
>>
>> A segment is considered eligible if:
>>
>> * THP is in "always" mode,
>> * it is not writable,
>> * both p_vaddr and p_offset are PMD-aligned,
>> * its file size is at least PMD_SIZE, and
>> * its existing p_align is smaller than PMD_SIZE.
>>
>> To avoid excessive address space padding on systems with very large
>> PMD_SIZE values, this optimization is applied only when PMD_SIZE <= 32MB,
>> since requiring larger alignments would be unreasonable, especially on
>> 32-bit systems with a much more limited virtual address space.
>>
>> This increases the likelihood that large text segments of ELF
>> executables are backed by PMD-sized THP, reducing TLB pressure and
>> improving performance for large binaries.
>>
>> This only affects ELF executables loaded directly by the kernel
>> binary loader. Shared libraries loaded by user space (e.g. via the
>> dynamic linker) are not affected.
> 
> Usama posted a similar patchset[1], and I think using exec_folio_order() for exec-segment alignment is reasonable. In your case, you can override exec_folio_order() to return a PMD‑sized order.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260310145406.3073394-1-usama.arif@xxxxxxxxx/
> 

Thanks for the CC Baolin! Happy to see someone else noticed the same issue!

Yeah I agree, I think piggybacking off exec_folio_order() as done in 1 should be
the right appproach.

I also think there is maybe a bug in do_sync_mmap_readahead that needs to be fixed
when it comes to mmap_miss counter [2].


[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260310145406.3073394-1-usama.arif@xxxxxxxxx/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260310145406.3073394-3-usama.arif@xxxxxxxxx/

>> Benchmark
>>
>> Machine: AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (x86_64)
>> Binutils: 2.46
>> GCC: 15.2.1 (built with -z,noseparate-code + --enable-host-pie)
>>
>> Workload: building Linux v7.0-rc1 vmlinux with x86_64_defconfig.
>>
>>                  Without patch        With patch
>> instructions    8,246,133,611,932    8,246,025,137,750
>> cpu-cycles      8,001,028,142,928    7,565,925,107,502
>> itlb-misses     3,672,158,331        26,821,242
>> time elapsed    64.66 s              61.97 s
>>
>> Instructions are basically unchanged. iTLB misses drop from ~3.67B to
>> ~26M (~99.27% reduction), which results in about a ~5.44% reduction in
>> cycles and ~4.18% shorter wall time for this workload.
>>
>> [v3]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20260310013958.103636-1-r@xxxxxx
>> [v2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20260304114727.384416-1-r@xxxxxx
>> [v1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20260302155046.286650-1-r@xxxxxx
>>
>> WANG Rui (2):
>>    huge_mm: add stubs for THP-disabled configs
>>    binfmt_elf: Align eligible read-only PT_LOAD segments to PMD_SIZE for
>>      THP
>>
>>   fs/binfmt_elf.c         | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   include/linux/huge_mm.h | 10 ++++++++++
>>   2 files changed, 39 insertions(+)
>>
>