Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/khugepaged: reduce process visible downtime by pre-zeroing hugepage

[David Hildenbrand]

On 12.03.24 14:09, Lance Yang wrote:
> Hey David,
>
> Thanks for taking time to review!
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 12:19 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 08.03.24 08:49, Lance Yang wrote:
> > > The patch reduces the process visible downtime during hugepage
> > > collapse. This is achieved by pre-zeroing the hugepage before
> > > acquiring mmap_lock(write mode) if nr_pte_none >= 256, without
> > > affecting the efficiency of khugepaged.
> > >
> > > On an Intel Core i5 CPU, the process visible downtime during
> > > hugepage collapse is as follows:
> > >
> > > | nr_ptes_none  | w/o __GFP_ZERO | w/ __GFP_ZERO  |  Change |
> > > --------------------------------------------------—----------
> > > |      511      |     233us      |      95us      |  -59.21%|
> > > |      384      |     376us      |     219us      |  -41.20%|
> > > |      256      |     421us      |     323us      |  -23.28%|
> > > |      128      |     523us      |     507us      |   -3.06%|
> > >
> > > Of course, alloc_charge_hpage() will take longer to run with
> > > the __GFP_ZERO flag.
> > >
> > > |       Func           | w/o __GFP_ZERO | w/ __GFP_ZERO |
> > > |----------------------|----------------|---------------|
> > > | alloc_charge_hpage   |      198us     |      295us    |
> > >
> > > But it's not a big deal because it doesn't impact the total
> > > time spent by khugepaged in collapsing a hugepage. In fact,
> > > it would decrease.
> >
> > It does look sane to me and not overly complicated.
> >
> > But, it's an optimization really only when we have quite a bunch of
> > pte_none(), possibly repeatedly so that it really makes a difference.
> >
> > Usually, when we repeatedly collapse that many pte_none() we're just
> > wasting a lot of memory and should re-evaluate life choices :)
>
> Agreed! It seems that the default value of max_pte_none may be set too
> high, which could result in the memory wastage issue we're discussing.

IIRC, some companies disable it completely (set to 0) because of that.

> > So my question is: do we really care about it that much that we care to
> > optimize?
>
> IMO, although it may not be our main concern, reducing the impact of
> khugepaged on the process remains crucial. I think that users also prefer
> minimal interference from khugepaged.

The problem I am having with this is that for the *common* case where we 
have a small number of pte_none(), we cannot really optimize because we 
have to perform the copy.

So this feels like we're rather optimizing a corner case, and I am not 
so sure if that is really worth it.

Other thoughts?

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb