Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:39:00 -0800 | Subject | Re: [RESEND PATCH v7 00/10] Small-sized THP for anonymous memory | From | John Hubbard <> |
| |
On 11/28/23 07:34, Ryan Roberts wrote: > On 28/11/2023 14:09, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 28.11.23 13:15, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>> On 28/11/2023 08:48, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> How about we just stop trying to come up with a term for the "small-sized THP" >>> vs "PMD-sized THP" and instead invent a name that covers ALL THP: >>> >>> "multi-size THP" vs "PMD-sized THP". >>> >>> Then in the docs we can talk about how multi-size THP introduces the ability to >>> allocate memory in blocks that are bigger than a base page but smaller than >>> traditional PMD-size, in increments of a power-of-2 number of pages. >> >> So you're thinking of something like "multi-size THP" as a feature name, and >> stating that for now we limit it to <= PMD size. mTHP would be the short name? > > Sure.
Sounds workable to me, too.
> >> >> For the stats, we'd document that "AnonHugePages" and friends only count >> traditional PMD-sized THP for historical reasons -- and that AnonHugePages >> should have been called AnonHugePmdMapped (which we could still add as an alias >> and document why AnonHugePages is weird). > > Sounds good to me.
OK.
> >> >> Regarding new stats, maybe an interface that indicates the actual sizes would be >> best. As discussed, extending the existing single-large-file statistics might >> not be possible and we'd have to come up with a new interface, that maybe >> completely lacks "AnonHugePages" and directly goes for the individual sizes. > > Yes, but I think we are agreed this is future work. >
We do want to have at least some way to verify that mTHP is active from day 0, though.
thanks, -- John Hubbard NVIDIA
| |