On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 10:09:43AM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> I finally finished reading through the discussions across multiple
> threads:), and it looks like we've reached a preliminary consensus (make
> 0/511 work). Great and thanks!
Yes we're getting there :) it's a sincere effort to try to find a way to move
forwards.
>
> IIUC, the strategy is, configuring it to 511 means always enabling mTHP
> collapse, configuring it to 0 means collapsing mTHP only if all PTEs are
> non-none/zero, and for other values, we issue a warning and prohibit mTHP
> collapse (avoid Lorenzo's concern about silently changing max_ptes_none).
> Then the implementation for collapse_max_ptes_none() should be as follows:
>
> static int collapse_max_ptes_none(unsigned int order, bool full_scan)
> {
> /* ignore max_ptes_none limits */
> if (full_scan)
> return HPAGE_PMD_NR - 1;
>
> if (order == HPAGE_PMD_ORDER)
> return khugepaged_max_ptes_none;
>
> /*
> * To prevent creeping towards larger order collapses for mTHP
> collapse,
> * we restrict khugepaged_max_ptes_none to only 511 or 0,
> simplifying the
> * logic. This means:
> * max_ptes_none == 511 -> collapse mTHP always
> * max_ptes_none == 0 -> collapse mTHP only if we all PTEs are
> non-none/zero
> */
> if (!khugepaged_max_ptes_none || khugepaged_max_ptes_none ==
> HPAGE_PMD_NR - 1)
> return khugepaged_max_ptes_none >> (HPAGE_PMD_ORDER -
> order);
>
> pr_warn_once("mTHP collapse only supports khugepaged_max_ptes_none
> configured as 0 or %d\n", HPAGE_PMD_NR - 1);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> So what do you think?
Yeah I think something like this.
Though I'd implement it more explicitly like:
/* Zero/non-present collapse disabled. */
if (!khugepaged_max_ptes_none)
return 0;
/* Collapse the maximum number of zero/non-present PTEs. */
if (khugepaged_max_ptes_none == HPAGE_PMD_NR - 1)
return (1 << order) - 1;
Then we can do away with this confusing (HPAGE_PMD_ORDER - order) stuff.
A quick check in google sheets suggests my maths is ok here but do correct me if
I'm wrong :)
Cheers, Lorenzo
