Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] mm/memory: add anonymous mTHP folios to deferred split list

Hello Barry,

On Tue, Aug 04, 2026 at 05:20:00AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 10:45 PM Johannes Weiner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 01, 2026 at 03:33:42PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 11:04 PM Johannes Weiner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Here is an idea: the THP shrinker will not consider anything unused
> > > > that has <= max_ptes_none zero pages. See thp_underused(). Joanne was
> > > > proposing to scale this knob down relative to the folio size for mTHP
> > > > shrinking. What if instead we kept the meaning absolute?
> > > >
> > > > The knob is an expression of how much waste the user is willing to
> > > > tolerate per folio. If the folio order in question couldn't possibly
> > > > have that much waste in the first place, we don't have to queue it?
> > > >
> > > > Something like this:
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> > > > index 2bccb0a53a0a..1670e9869bd3 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> > > > @@ -4364,6 +4364,9 @@ void deferred_split_folio(struct folio *folio, bool partially_mapped)
> > > >         if (!partially_mapped && !split_underused_thp)
> > > >                 return;
> > > >
> > > > +       if (!partially_mapped && folio_nr_pages(folio) <= khugepaged_max_ptes_none)
> > > > +               return;
> > > > +
> > > >         /*
> > > >          * Exclude swapcache: originally to avoid a corrupt deferred split
> > > >          * queue. Nowadays that is fully prevented by __memcg1_swapout();
> > > >
> > > > The setting defaults to the PMD-1, so out of the box we wouldn't queue
> > > > any new orders. It would allow that 2MB on 64k ARM usecase, without
> > > > jeopardizing smaller mTHP usecases like Barry's.

^^^

> > > My understanding is that adding smaller folios to the deferred split
> > > list is not the right approach. We could end up with a very large list
> > > where we cannot distinguish partially unmapped folios from fully mapped
> > > ones. For example, the deferred split list could contain 100 fully mapped
> > > folios but only a single partially mapped folio.
> > > Moreover, for smaller large folios, the number of zero subpages
> > > is likely to be small and short-lived.
> > >
> > > However, this is probably fine for larger large folios, since it is
> > > unlikely to significantly increase the size of the deferred split
> > > list. In other words, the deferred split list should remain manageable.
> > > For the same reason, larger large folios may not benefit much from the
> > > LRU cache either.
> > >
> > > So if we have some mechanism to prevent users from doing things that
> > > are not beneficial, such as adding smaller large folios to the list, it
> > > seems reasonable to me.
> >
> > Just to clarify, we're on the same page, right? I was proposing a
> > mechanism to do just that.
> 
> For example, with smaller folios, the distribution might look
> something like this:
> 
> Smaller large folios
> 
> +------------------------------------------------------------+
> | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | P | Z |
> +------------------------------------------------------------+
> 
> F: Fully mapped      (dominant)
> P: Partially mapped  (rare)
> Z: Zero subpages mapped (rare)
> 
> So it doesn't make much sense to add them to the list, because we
> would rarely find P, and even the few Z entries we do find would
> soon be filled with non-zero data anyway.
> 
> For larger folios, the list becomes much shorter. As folio size
> increases, they are more likely to contain zero-filled subpages:
> 
> Larger large folios:
> 
> +------------------------------------------------------------+
> | F | P | Z | F | P | Z | P | F | Z | F | P | Z | F | P | Z |
> +------------------------------------------------------------+
> 
> F, P and Z become much more evenly distributed.
> 
> So if the folio is large enough, this seems acceptable. I know a
> sysctl knob may not be well received, as it adds to the user's
> configuration burden. Perhaps we could just hard-code a
> sufficiently large value instead? for example,
> 
> #define LARGE_FOLIO_ZERO_SCAN_MIN_SIZE SZ_2M
> 
> if (folio_size(folio) >= LARGE_FOLIO_ZERO_SCAN_MIN_SIZE)
>      deferred_split_folio(folio, false);
> 
> If, someday, people find that 1 MiB also helps, they can provide
> data to support it.

I am very confused. Did you not see my proposal above?

Why not this?

diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
index 2bccb0a53a0a..1670e9869bd3 100644
--- a/mm/huge_memory.c
+++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
@@ -4364,6 +4364,9 @@ void deferred_split_folio(struct folio *folio, bool partially_mapped)
 	if (!partially_mapped && !split_underused_thp)
 		return;
 
+	if (!partially_mapped && folio_nr_pages(folio) <= khugepaged_max_ptes_none)
+		return;
+
 	/*
 	 * Exclude swapcache: originally to avoid a corrupt deferred split
 	 * queue. Nowadays that is fully prevented by __memcg1_swapout();