Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] add mTHP support for anonymous shmem

[Baolin Wang]

On 2024/5/31 19:13, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > As a default, we should not be using large folios / mTHP for any shmem,
> > > just like we did with THP via shmem_enabled. This is what this series
> > > currently does, and is aprt of the whole mTHP user-space interface 
> > > design.
> > >
> > > Further, the mTHP controls should control all of shmem, not only
> > > "anonymous shmem".
> >
> > Yes, that's what I thought and in my TODO list.
>
> Good, it would be helpful to coordinate with Daniel and Pankaj.
>
> > > Also, we should properly fallback within the configured sizes, and not
> > > jump "over" configured sizes. Unless there is a good reason.
> > >
> > > (3) khugepaged
> > >
> > > khugepaged needs to handle larger folios properly as well. Until fixed,
> > > using smaller THP sizes as fallback might prohibit collapsing a
> > > PMD-sized THP later. But really, khugepaged needs to be fixed to handle
> > > that. >
> > > (4) force/disable
> > >
> > > These settings are rather testing artifacts from the old ages. We should
> > > not add them to the per-size toggles. We might "inherit" it from the
> > > global one, though.
> >
> > Sorry, I missed this. So I thould remove the 'force' and 'deny' option
> > for each mTHP, right?
>
> Yes, that's my understanding. But we have to keep them on the top level 
> for any possible user out there.

OK.

> > > "within_size" might have value, and especially for consistency, we
> > > should have them per size.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So, this series only tackles anonymous shmem, which is a good starting
> > > point. Ideally, we'd get support for other shmem (especially during
> > > fault time) soon afterwards, because we won't be adding separate toggles
> > > for that from the interface POV, and having inconsistent behavior
> > > between kernel versions would be a bit unfortunate.
> > >
> > >
> > > @Baolin, this series likely does not consider (4) yet. And I suggest we
> > > have to take a lot of the "anonymous thp" terminology out of this
> > > series, especially when it comes to documentation.
> >
> > Sure. I will remove the "anonymous thp" terminology from the
> > documentation, but want to still keep it in the commit message, cause I
> > want to start from the anonymous shmem.
>
> For commit message and friends makes sense. The story should be 
> "controls all of shmem/tmpfs, but support will be added iteratively. The 
> first step is anonymous shmem."

Sure. Thanks.