Re: [v2 PATCH] mm: thp: fix false negative of shmem vma's THP eligibility

[Yang Shi]

On 5/7/19 3:47 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [Hmm, I thought, Hugh was CCed]
>
> On Mon 06-05-19 16:37:42, Yang Shi wrote:
> > On 4/28/19 12:13 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > On 4/23/19 10:52 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Wed 24-04-19 00:43:01, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > > > The commit 7635d9cbe832 ("mm, thp, proc: report THP eligibility
> > > > > for each
> > > > > vma") introduced THPeligible bit for processes' smaps. But, when
> > > > > checking
> > > > > the eligibility for shmem vma, __transparent_hugepage_enabled() is
> > > > > called to override the result from shmem_huge_enabled(). It may result
> > > > > in the anonymous vma's THP flag override shmem's. For example,
> > > > > running a
> > > > > simple test which create THP for shmem, but with anonymous THP
> > > > > disabled,
> > > > > when reading the process's smaps, it may show:
> > > > >
> > > > > 7fc92ec00000-7fc92f000000 rw-s 00000000 00:14 27764 /dev/shm/test
> > > > > Size:ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 4096 kB
> > > > > ...
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > > ...
> > > > > ShmemPmdMapped:ÂÂÂÂ 4096 kB
> > > > > ...
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > > ...
> > > > > THPeligible:ÂÂÂ 0
> > > > >
> > > > > And, /proc/meminfo does show THP allocated and PMD mapped too:
> > > > >
> > > > > ShmemHugePages:ÂÂÂÂ 4096 kB
> > > > > ShmemPmdMapped:ÂÂÂÂ 4096 kB
> > > > >
> > > > > This doesn't make too much sense. The anonymous THP flag should not
> > > > > intervene shmem THP. Calling shmem_huge_enabled() with checking
> > > > > MMF_DISABLE_THP sounds good enough. And, we could skip stack and
> > > > > dax vma check since we already checked if the vma is shmem already.
> > > > Kirill, can we get a confirmation that this is really intended behavior
> > > > rather than an omission please? Is this documented? What is a global
> > > > knob to simply disable THP system wise?
> > > Hi Kirill,
> > >
> > > Ping. Any comment?
> > Talked with Kirill at LSFMM, it sounds this is kind of intended behavior
> > according to him. But, we all agree it looks inconsistent.
> >
> > So, we may have two options:
> >  ÂÂÂ - Just fix the false negative issue as what the patch does
> >  ÂÂÂ - Change the behavior to make it more consistent
> >
> > I'm not sure whether anyone relies on the behavior explicitly or implicitly
> > or not.
> Well, I would be certainly more happy with a more consistent behavior.
> Talked to Hugh at LSFMM about this and he finds treating shmem objects
> separately from the anonymous memory. And that is already the case
> partially when each mount point might have its own setup. So the primary
> question is whether we need a one global knob to controll all THP
> allocations. One argument to have that is that it might be helpful to
> for an admin to simply disable source of THP at a single place rather
> than crawling over all shmem mount points and remount them. Especially
> in environments where shmem points are mounted in a container by a
> non-root. Why would somebody wanted something like that? One example
> would be to temporarily workaround high order allocations issues which
> we have seen non trivial amount of in the past and we are likely not at
> the end of the tunel.

Shmem has a global control for such use. Setting shmem_enabled to 
"force" or "deny" would enable or disable THP for shmem globally, 
including non-fs objects, i.e. memfd, SYS V shmem, etc.

> That being said I would be in favor of treating the global sysfs knob to
> be global for all THP allocations. I will not push back on that if there
> is a general consensus that shmem and fs in general are a different
> class of objects and a single global control is not desirable for
> whatever reasons.

OK, we need more inputs from Kirill, Hugh and other folks.

> Kirill, Hugh othe folks?