Re: [PATCH v4] mm/thp: fix "mm: thp: kill __transhuge_page_enabled()"

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 06.10.23 19:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 13:01:10 -0700 "Zach O'Keefe" <zokeefe@google.com> wrote:
> 
>> The 6.0 commits:
>>
>> commit 9fec51689ff6 ("mm: thp: kill transparent_hugepage_active()")
>> commit 7da4e2cb8b1f ("mm: thp: kill __transhuge_page_enabled()")
>>
>> merged "can we have THPs in this VMA?" logic that was previously done
>> separately by fault-path, khugepaged, and smaps "THPeligible" checks.
>>
>> During the process, the semantics of the fault path check changed in two
>> ways:
>>
>> 1) A VM_NO_KHUGEPAGED check was introduced (also added to smaps path).
>> 2) We no longer checked if non-anonymous memory had a vm_ops->huge_fault
>>     handler that could satisfy the fault.  Previously, this check had been
>>     done in create_huge_pud() and create_huge_pmd() routines, but after
>>     the changes, we never reach those routines.
>>
>> During the review of the above commits, it was determined that in-tree
>> users weren't affected by the change; most notably, since the only relevant
>> user (in terms of THP) of VM_MIXEDMAP or ->huge_fault is DAX, which is
>> explicitly approved early in approval logic. However, this was a bad
>> assumption to make as it assumes the only reason to support ->huge_fault
>> was for DAX (which is not true in general).
>>
>> Remove the VM_NO_KHUGEPAGED check when not in collapse path and give
>> any ->huge_fault handler a chance to handle the fault.  Note that we
>> don't validate the file mode or mapping alignment, which is consistent
>> with the behavior before the aforementioned commits.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> @@ -100,11 +100,11 @@ bool hugepage_vma_check(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long vm_flags,
>>   		return in_pf;
>>   
> 
> Ryan's "mm: thp: introduce anon_orders and anon_always_mask sysfs
> files" changes hugepage_vma_check() to return an unsigned int, so this
> patch will need some rework to fit in after that.
> 
> However Ryan's overall series "variable-order, large folios for
> anonymous memory" is in early days and might not make it.
> 
> And as I don't know what is the urgency of this patch ("mm/thp: fix
> "mm: thp: kill __transhuge_page_enabled()"), I'm unable to decide which
> patch needs to come first (thus requiring rework of the other patch).
> 
> Please discuss!

IMHO clearly this one.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb