I am working on the tmpfs side on top of this patchset, which I assume has
better applications usage than ramfs.

However, I am working on 3.3 so far and will probably get my patches ported
to upstream pretty soon. I believe my patchset is also in early stage but
it does help to get some solid numbers in our own projects, which is very
convincing. However, I think it does depend on the characteristic of the
job .....



Best wishes,
-- 
Ning Qu (曲宁) | Software Engineer | quning@google.com | +1-408-418-6066


On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:05:28 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <
> kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > It brings thp support for ramfs, but without mmap() -- it will be posted
> > separately.
>
> We were never going to do this :(
>
> Has anyone reviewed these patches much yet?
>
> > Please review and consider applying.
>
> It appears rather too immature at this stage.
>
> > Intro
> > -----
> >
> > The goal of the project is preparing kernel infrastructure to handle huge
> > pages in page cache.
> >
> > To proof that the proposed changes are functional we enable the feature
> > for the most simple file system -- ramfs. ramfs is not that useful by
> > itself, but it's good pilot project.
>
> At the very least we should get this done for a real filesystem to see
> how intrusive the changes are and to evaluate the performance changes.
>
>
> Sigh.  A pox on whoever thought up huge pages.  Words cannot express
> how much of a godawful mess they have made of Linux MM.  And it hasn't
> ended yet :( My take is that we'd need to see some very attractive and
> convincing real-world performance numbers before even thinking of
> taking this on.
>
>
>
>