Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Do not shatter hugezeropage on wp-fault

[Ryan Roberts]

Hi Dev,

On 04/09/2024 11:09, Dev Jain wrote:
> It was observed at [1] and [2] that the current kernel behaviour of
> shattering a hugezeropage is inconsistent and suboptimal. For a VMA with
> a THP allowable order, when we write-fault on it, the kernel installs a
> PMD-mapped THP. On the other hand, if we first get a read fault, we get
> a PMD pointing to the hugezeropage; subsequent write will trigger a
> write-protection fault, shattering the hugezeropage into one writable
> page, and all the other PTEs write-protected. The conclusion being, as
> compared to the case of a single write-fault, applications have to suffer
> 512 extra page faults if they were to use the VMA as such, plus we get
> the overhead of khugepaged trying to replace that area with a THP anyway.
> 
> Instead, replace the hugezeropage with a THP on wp-fault.
> 
> v1->v2:
>  - Wrap do_huge_zero_wp_pmd_locked() around lock and unlock
>  - Call thp_fault_alloc() before do_huge_zero_wp_pmd_locked() to avoid
>  - calling sleeping function from spinlock context
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/3743d7e1-0b79-4eaf-82d5-d1ca29fe347d@xxxxxxx/
> [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/1cfae0c0-96a2-4308-9c62-f7a640520242@xxxxxxx/
> 
> Dev Jain (2):
>   mm: Abstract THP allocation
>   mm: Allocate THP on hugezeropage wp-fault
> 
>  include/linux/huge_mm.h |   6 ++
>  mm/huge_memory.c        | 171 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  mm/memory.c             |   5 +-
>  3 files changed, 136 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
> 

What is the base for this? It doesn't apply on top of mm-unstable.

Thanks,
Ryan