From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hughd@google.com, david@redhat.com,
wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, 21cnbao@gmail.com,
ryan.roberts@arm.com, ioworker0@gmail.com, da.gomez@samsung.com,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] Support large folios for tmpfs
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 10:36:39 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <300de9ce-7a3d-4495-a232-c7cb419289a5@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZvVRiJYfaXD645Nh@casper.infradead.org>
On 2024/9/26 20:20, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 04:27:25PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> This RFC patch series attempts to support large folios for tmpfs. The first
>> patch is based on Daniel's previous patches in [1], mainly using the length
>> in the write and fallocate paths to get a highest order hint for large
>> order allocation. The last patch adds mTHP filter control for tmpfs if mTHP
>> is set for the following reasons:
>>
>> 1. Maintain backward compatibility for the control interface. Tmpfs already
>> has a global 'huge=' mount option and '/sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/shmem_enabled'
>> interface to control large order allocations. mTHP extends this capability to a
>> per-size basis while maintaining good interface compatibility.
>
> ... it's confusing as hell to anyone who tries to understand it and
> you've made it more complicated. Well done.
>
>> 2. For the large order allocation of writable mmap() faults in tmpfs, we need
>> something like the mTHP interfaces to control large orders, as well as ensuring
>> consistent interfaces with shmem.
>
> tmpfs and shmem do NOT need to be consistent! I don't know why anyone
> thinks this is a goal. tmpfs should be consistent with OTHER FILE
> SYSTEMS. shmem should do the right thing for the shared anon use case.
>
>> 3. Ryan pointed out that large order allocations based on write length could
>> lead to memory fragmentation issue. Just quoting Ryan's comment [2]:
>> "And it's possible (likely even, in my opinion) that allocating lots of different
>> folio sizes will exacerbate memory fragmentation, leading to more order-0
>> fallbacks, which would hurt the overall system performance in the long run, vs
>> restricting to a couple of folio sizes."
>
> I disagree with this. It's a buddy allocator; it's resistant to this
> kind of fragmentation.
Fine. Thanks for sharing your opinion. So far, I can drop patch 2 to
stop adding mTHP interfaces for tmpfs.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-27 2:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-26 8:27 Baolin Wang
2024-09-26 8:27 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] mm: shmem: add large folio support to the write and fallocate paths Baolin Wang
2024-09-26 12:16 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-09-26 12:58 ` Daniel Gomez
2024-09-26 13:40 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-09-27 2:12 ` Baolin Wang
2024-09-26 8:27 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/2] mm: shmem: use mTHP interface to control huge orders for tmpfs Baolin Wang
2024-09-26 12:20 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] Support large folios " Matthew Wilcox
2024-09-27 2:36 ` Baolin Wang [this message]
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=300de9ce-7a3d-4495-a232-c7cb419289a5@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=da.gomez@samsung.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=ioworker0@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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