From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Yu Xu <xuyu@linux.alibaba.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel-team@fb.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm,thp,shmem: limit shmem THP alloc gfp_mask
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 10:49:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201023084956.GS23790@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <932f5931911e5ad7d730127b0784b0913045639c.camel@surriel.com>
On Thu 22-10-20 23:40:53, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-10-22 at 19:54 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
[...]
> > But it's likely that they have accumulated some defrag wisdom, which
> > tmpfs can take on board - but please accept that in using a huge
> > mount,
> > the preference for huge has already been expressed, so I don't expect
> > anon THP alloc_hugepage_direct_gfpmask() choices will map one to one.
>
> In my mind, the huge= mount options for tmpfs corresponded
> to the "enabled" anon THP options, denoting a desired end
> state, not necessarily how much we will stall allocations
> to get there immediately.
It is really unfortunate that our configuration space is so huge and
messy but we have to live with that now.
Anyway, I would tend to agree that with an absense of per-mount defrag
configuration it makes sense to use the global one. Is anybody aware of
usecases where a mount specific configuration would make sense?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-23 8:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-22 16:45 Rik van Riel
2020-10-22 16:52 ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-10-23 2:54 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-10-23 3:40 ` Rik van Riel
2020-10-23 8:49 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2020-10-23 12:55 ` Matthew Wilcox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201023084956.GS23790@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=xuyu@linux.alibaba.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox