From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
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,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/4] Support large folios for tmpfs
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:26:16 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6dohx7zna7x6hxzo4cwnwarep3a7rohx4qxubds3uujfb7gp3c@2xaubczl2n6d> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e1b6fa05-019c-4a40-afc0-bc1efd15ad42@linux.alibaba.com>
On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 05:34:15PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> + Kirill
>
> On 2024/10/16 22:06, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 05:58:10PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > > Considering that tmpfs already has the 'huge=' option to control the THP
> > > allocation, it is necessary to maintain compatibility with the 'huge='
> > > option, as well as considering the 'deny' and 'force' option controlled
> > > by '/sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/shmem_enabled'.
> >
> > No, it's not. No other filesystem honours these settings. tmpfs would
> > not have had these settings if it were written today. It should simply
> > ignore them, the way that NFS ignores the "intr" mount option now that
> > we have a better solution to the original problem.
> >
> > To reiterate my position:
> >
> > - When using tmpfs as a filesystem, it should behave like other
> > filesystems.
> > - When using tmpfs to implement MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_SHARED, it should
> > behave like anonymous memory.
>
> I do agree with your point to some extent, but the ‘huge=’ option has
> existed for nearly 8 years, and the huge orders based on write size may not
> achieve the performance of PMD-sized THP in some scenarios, such as when the
> write length is consistently 4K. So, I am still concerned that ignoring the
> 'huge' option could lead to compatibility issues.
Yeah, I don't think we are there yet to ignore the mount option.
Maybe we need to get a new generic interface to request the semantics
tmpfs has with huge= on per-inode level on any fs. Like a set of FADV_*
handles to make kernel allocate PMD-size folio on any allocation or on
allocations within i_size. I think this behaviour is useful beyond tmpfs.
Then huge= implementation for tmpfs can be re-defined to set these
per-inode FADV_ flags by default. This way we can keep tmpfs compatible
with current deployments and less special comparing to rest of
filesystems on kernel side.
If huge= is not set, tmpfs would behave the same way as the rest of
filesystems.
--
Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-17 11:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-10 9:58 Baolin Wang
2024-10-10 9:58 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/4] mm: factor out the order calculation into a new helper Baolin Wang
2024-10-10 9:58 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/4] mm: shmem: change shmem_huge_global_enabled() to return huge order bitmap Baolin Wang
2024-10-10 9:58 ` [RFC PATCH v3 3/4] mm: shmem: add large folio support to the write and fallocate paths for tmpfs Baolin Wang
2024-10-10 9:58 ` [RFC PATCH v3 4/4] docs: tmpfs: add documention for 'write_size' huge option Baolin Wang
2024-10-16 7:49 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/4] Support large folios for tmpfs Kefeng Wang
2024-10-16 9:29 ` Baolin Wang
2024-10-16 13:45 ` Kefeng Wang
2024-10-17 9:52 ` Baolin Wang
2024-10-16 14:06 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-10-17 9:34 ` Baolin Wang
2024-10-17 11:26 ` Kirill A. Shutemov [this message]
2024-10-21 6:24 ` Baolin Wang
2024-10-21 8:54 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2024-10-21 13:34 ` Daniel Gomez
2024-10-22 3:41 ` Baolin Wang
2024-10-22 15:31 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-10-23 8:04 ` Baolin Wang
2024-10-23 9:27 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-10-24 10:49 ` Daniel Gomez
2024-10-24 10:52 ` Daniel Gomez
2024-10-25 2:56 ` Baolin Wang
2024-10-25 20:21 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-10-28 9:48 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-10-31 3:43 ` Baolin Wang
2024-10-31 8:53 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-10-31 10:04 ` Baolin Wang
2024-10-31 10:46 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-11-05 12:45 ` Baolin Wang
2024-11-05 14:56 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-11-06 3:17 ` Baolin Wang
2024-10-31 10:46 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-10-28 21:56 ` Daniel Gomez
2024-10-29 12:20 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-10-22 3:34 ` Baolin Wang
2024-10-22 10:06 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2024-10-23 9:25 ` Baolin Wang
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=6dohx7zna7x6hxzo4cwnwarep3a7rohx4qxubds3uujfb7gp3c@2xaubczl2n6d \
--to=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=da.gomez@samsung.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=ioworker0@gmail.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.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