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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A52EC3B187 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 00:47:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D9F220842 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 00:47:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Pdi2yUhM" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1D9F220842 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id A64746B0382; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:47:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A14356B0383; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:47:04 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 9290B6B0384; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:47:04 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0188.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.188]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786226B0382 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:47:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin19.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 168AD8248068 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 00:47:04 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76479635568.19.fork17_3daa251e6f32e X-HE-Tag: fork17_3daa251e6f32e X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3114 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf47.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 00:47:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-73-231-172-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.172.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 680A620724; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 00:47:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1581468422; bh=b5/Kny9cJImOUuHhADCWZI8pySPcI8WjgPGzmYXJLvs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Pdi2yUhMfT/ufvgDf4nz7m/Us3dBR2ijOxFyhnlLw9lcDNcE37lv8LiiZINqQba+p F0bGhLX9k23YHVoRW3Teow2JsQ9nUhs+NiCTx052yQPs7m+CEvrC2QZHfuHjmWLF90 uMNYvJSsqnIm0C0j4X6DKsYHRdoWyaV0GaAtOeiI= Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:47:01 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Johannes Weiner , Rik van Riel , linux-fsdevel , Linux-MM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Dave Chinner , Yafang Shao , Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin , Al Viro , kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: keep inodes with page cache off the inode shrinker LRU Message-Id: <20200211164701.4ac88d9222e23d1e8cc57c51@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20200211175507.178100-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <29b6e848ff4ad69b55201751c9880921266ec7f4.camel@surriel.com> <20200211193101.GA178975@cmpxchg.org> <20200211154438.14ef129db412574c5576facf@linux-foundation.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:28:39 -0800 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 3:44 PM Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > Testing this will be a challenge, but the issue was real - a 7GB > > highmem machine isn't crazy and I expect the inode has become larger > > since those days. > > Hmm. I would say that in the intening years a 7GB highmem machine has > indeed become crazy. > > It used to be something we kind of supported. > > But we really should consider HIGHMEM to be something that is on the > deprecation list. In this day and age, there is no excuse for running > a 32-bit kernel with lots of physical memory. > > And if you really want to do that, and have some legacy hardware with > a legacy use case, maybe you should be using a legacy kernel. > > I'd personally be perfectly happy to start removing HIGHMEM support again. > That would be nice. What's the situation with highmem on ARM?