From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8283ECF6498 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2024 02:02:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id DD42C6B01F6; Sun, 29 Sep 2024 22:02:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id D843A6B01F8; Sun, 29 Sep 2024 22:02:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id C72886B01FA; Sun, 29 Sep 2024 22:02:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA0616B01F6 for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2024 22:02:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin26.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 183F51C72A5 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2024 02:02:28 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 82619755176.26.FB141DD Received: from out30-133.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-133.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.133]) by imf10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90ED5C0006 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2024 02:02:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf10.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.s=default header.b=hOsytqmo; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass (imf10.hostedemail.com: domain of baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com designates 115.124.30.133 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1727661644; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=mr5QhJIGEqBYtp9gOn2ELUw0vje5/V6fooy6dI85aTW4o5MzC/9DsI3jN2G9HD0bx4r//6 XtZeai3T5mXb86H3ygGAOS2LH8ubQm+K4dG3mkM9e1QXFxQCghfNCeuxzV0yeRvGwQHBg7 DwJEjX0beOhvmdVqmDdz/mlZrbgkYLA= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf10.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.s=default header.b=hOsytqmo; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass (imf10.hostedemail.com: domain of baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com designates 115.124.30.133 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1727661644; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=ldefraz5rFyL/LLYuTatQoVMo2Z9oXl/AKXIrt0zCQc=; b=4nOhP0gSxHp/EvH/ZtPW+t589QGp0brrXmWGjlnw5zzQBod10q3GB44oFOfwTEe9WcTnS8 GgPDLvwTaxFnxPNU/r2g26W81BcImDQODn+IWKDGHrUELn5lJzHd5kTqVoP8meCGvgSbAE VmteMHjYnNbkqbKwpa1sxhLxmVYF1H8= DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1727661734; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; bh=ldefraz5rFyL/LLYuTatQoVMo2Z9oXl/AKXIrt0zCQc=; b=hOsytqmoWdvMO3n9m96MLOTntV3IqfwA+tm9AEWDg4wKL0w8/6wIadFBhj3scceFy9EbDSRHIoFuPDw5TaTDfVVsFVA/e9LFt7keOnN0fcwjiD/HqFt1FUh/OmDGIfTHktzyo8CfELkeB9v8rMcGPfUDK1kMrCSrBAHwAyJAYss= Received: from 30.74.144.111(mailfrom:baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0WFxLnGU_1727661733) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:02:13 +0800 Message-ID: <1e5357de-3356-4ae7-bc69-b50edca3852b@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:02:11 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tmpfs: fault in smaller chunks if large folio allocation not allowed To: Matthew Wilcox , "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" Cc: Kefeng Wang , Andrew Morton , Hugh Dickins , Alexander Viro , Christian Brauner , Jan Kara , Anna Schumaker , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org References: <20240914140613.2334139-1-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> <20240920143654.1008756-1-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> <1d4f98aa-f57d-4801-8510-5c44e027c4e4@huawei.com> From: Baolin Wang In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspam12 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 90ED5C0006 X-Stat-Signature: sab9qinjaf6krocdomhs4m3hsujphmma X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1727661743-177237 X-HE-Meta: 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 OnkeIO17 Lq+PjFEbuatj/KgNOSw7jlwSrj7/m7708+X37zPzNcl2OyOn2Qss1IUkVtlbWjzbZd/x4r/FKPvdmiO62wQ/9pEvPVIpl/i7Me0ZY40eQWbspICkJDOIxxV1PMNY8lxUf9luF/BqF5fKTitxDOM5uqE20tzHZamt13TZt5ZWXICNQa/AYjeFxJSLB5CfsJ9Xtd1RbY7/BecP9WILVZMdkeGgl677xkLig5DjgVeTZUOH+DrjXni/pWOAfn3WURt2U1lqsxt5qvdjAEMftApEgs0B6Ooh6RSB/TfEGNZugHDQ8A5s= X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 2024/9/26 21:52, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 10:38:34AM +0200, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote: >>> So this is why I don't use mapping_set_folio_order_range() here, but >>> correct me if I am wrong. >> >> Yeah, the inode is active here as the max folio size is decided based on >> the write size, so probably mapping_set_folio_order_range() will not be >> a safe option. > > You really are all making too much of this. Here's the patch I think we > need: > > +++ b/mm/shmem.c > @@ -2831,7 +2831,8 @@ static struct inode *__shmem_get_inode(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, > cache_no_acl(inode); > if (sbinfo->noswap) > mapping_set_unevictable(inode->i_mapping); > - mapping_set_large_folios(inode->i_mapping); > + if (sbinfo->huge) > + mapping_set_large_folios(inode->i_mapping); > > switch (mode & S_IFMT) { > default: IMHO, we no longer need the the 'sbinfo->huge' validation after adding support for large folios in the tmpfs write and fallocate paths [1]. Kefeng, can you try if the following RFC patch [1] can solve your problem? Thanks. (PS: I will revise the patch according to Matthew's suggestion) [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/c03ec1cb1392332726ab265a3d826fe1c408c7e7.1727338549.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com/