From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com (mail-pa0-f52.google.com [209.85.220.52]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E21346B0036 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:08:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id kl14so6182970pab.25 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 11:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f182.google.com with SMTP id oy12so4310169veb.41 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 11:08:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20130930101029.GC2425@suse.de> References: <1379937950-8411-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20130924163740.4bc7db61e3e520798220dc4c@linux-foundation.org> <20130930100249.GB2425@suse.de> <20130930101029.GC2425@suse.de> From: Ning Qu Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 11:07:57 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 00/22] Transparent huge page cache: phase 1, everything but mmap() Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mel Gorman Cc: Andrew Morton , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Andrea Arcangeli , Al Viro , Hugh Dickins , Wu Fengguang , Jan Kara , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andi Kleen , Matthew Wilcox , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Hillf Danton , Dave Hansen , Alexander Shishkin , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I suppose sysv shm and tmpfs share the same code base now, so both of them will benefit from thp page cache? And for Kirill's previous patchset (till v4), it contains mmap support as well. I suppose the patchset got splitted into smaller group so it's easier to review .... Best wishes, --=20 Ning Qu (=E6=9B=B2=E5=AE=81) | Software Engineer | quning@google.com | +1-4= 08-418-6066 On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:02:49AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 04:37:40PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >> > On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:05:28 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov" wrote: >> > >> > > It brings thp support for ramfs, but without mmap() -- it will be po= sted >> > > separately. >> > >> > We were never going to do this :( >> > >> > Has anyone reviewed these patches much yet? >> > >> >> I am afraid I never looked too closely once I learned that the primary >> motivation for this was relieving iTLB pressure in a very specific >> case. AFAIK, this is not a problem in the vast majority of modern CPUs >> and I found it very hard to be motivated to review the series as a resul= t. >> I suspected that in many cases that the cost of IO would continue to dom= inate >> performance instead of TLB pressure. I also found it unlikely that there >> was a workload that was tmpfs based that used enough memory to be hurt >> by TLB pressure. My feedback was that a much more compelling case for th= e >> series was needed but this discussion all happened on IRC unfortunately. >> > > Oh, one last thing I forgot. While tmpfs-based workloads were not likely = to > benefit I would expect that sysV shared memory workloads would potentiall= y > benefit from this. hugetlbfs is still required for shared memory areas > but it is not a problem that is addressed by this series. > > -- > Mel Gorman > SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org