"David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <[email protected]> writes: > CCing ppc folks >
Thanks David! > On 2/11/26 13:49, Usama Arif wrote: >> When the kernel creates a PMD-level THP mapping for anonymous pages, >> it pre-allocates a PTE page table and deposits it via >> pgtable_trans_huge_deposit(). This deposited table is withdrawn during >> PMD split or zap. The rationale was that split must not fail—if the >> kernel decides to split a THP, it needs a PTE table to populate. >> >> However, every anon THP wastes 4KB (one page table page) that sits >> unused in the deposit list for the lifetime of the mapping. On systems >> with many THPs, this adds up to significant memory waste. The original >> rationale is also not an issue. It is ok for split to fail, and if the >> kernel can't find an order 0 allocation for split, there are much bigger >> problems. On large servers where you can easily have 100s of GBs of THPs, >> the memory usage for these tables is 200M per 100G. This memory could be >> used for any other usecase, which include allocating the pagetables >> required during split. >> >> This patch removes the pre-deposit for anonymous pages on architectures >> where arch_needs_pgtable_deposit() returns false (every arch apart from >> powerpc, and only when radix hash tables are not enabled) and allocates >> the PTE table lazily—only when a split actually occurs. The split path >> is modified to accept a caller-provided page table. >> >> PowerPC exception: >> >> It would have been great if we can completely remove the pagetable >> deposit code and this commit would mostly have been a code cleanup patch, >> unfortunately PowerPC has hash MMU, it stores hash slot information in >> the deposited page table and pre-deposit is necessary. All deposit/ >> withdraw paths are guarded by arch_needs_pgtable_deposit(), so PowerPC >> behavior is unchanged with this patch. On a better note, >> arch_needs_pgtable_deposit will always evaluate to false at compile time >> on non PowerPC architectures and the pre-deposit code will not be >> compiled in. > > Is there a way to remove this? It's always been a confusing hack, now > it's unpleasant to have around :) > Hash MMU on PowerPC works fundamentally different than other MMUs (unlike Radix MMU on PowerPC). So yes, it requires few tricks to fit into the Linux's multi-level SW page table model. ;) > In particular, seeing that radix__pgtable_trans_huge_deposit() just 1:1 > copied generic pgtable_trans_huge_deposit() hurts my belly. > On PowerPC, pgtable_t can be a pte fragment. typedef pte_t *pgtable_t; That means a single page can be shared among other PTE page tables. So, we cannot use page->lru which the generic implementation uses. I guess due to this, there is a slight change in implementation of radix__pgtable_trans_huge_deposit(). Doing a grep search, I think that's the same for sparc and s390 as well. > > IIUC, hash is mostly used on legacy power systems, radix on newer ones. > > So one obvious solution: remove PMD THP support for hash MMUs along with > all this hacky deposit code. > Unfortunately, please no. There are real customers using Hash MMU on Power9 and even on older generations and this would mean breaking Hash PMD THP support for them. > > the "vma_is_anonymous(vma) && !arch_needs_pgtable_deposit()" and similar > checks need to be wrapped in a reasonable helper and likely this all > needs to get cleaned up further. > > The implementation if the generic pgtable_trans_huge_deposit and the > radix handlers etc must be removed. If any code would trigger them it > would be a bug. > Sure, I think after this patch series, the radix__pgtable_trans_huge_deposit() will mostly be a dead code anyways. I will spend some time going through this series and will also give it a test on powerpc HW (with both Hash and Radix MMU). I guess, we should also look at removing pgtable_trans_huge_deposit() and pgtable_trans_huge_withdraw() implementations from s390 and sparc, since those too will be dead code after this. > If we have to keep this around, pgtable_trans_huge_deposit() should > likely get renamed to arch_pgtable_trans_huge_deposit() etc, as there > will not be generic support for it. > Sure. That make sense since PowerPC Hash MMU will still need this. -ritesh
