From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54118C433F5 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 15:16:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D573160FDA for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 15:16:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org D573160FDA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=cmpxchg.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 68A3D6B0073; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 63C32900002; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:16:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 5018E6B009E; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:16:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0058.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.58]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42ECC6B0073 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin19.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD5A183C8A8A for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 15:16:21 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78713538162.19.B70E0D1 Received: from mail-qk1-f169.google.com (mail-qk1-f169.google.com [209.85.222.169]) by imf02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5115D7001A08 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 15:16:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk1-f169.google.com with SMTP id r15so237113qkp.8 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:16:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cmpxchg-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=z2QCsj8uoI1elGSwjIcPM3flWlmV5asRjFaV2+Zm7wQ=; b=P0eGPUE0ED5s2q2cgVj1MBGSU0NFueMDTHHmFRDzaMGveNnY7eva5aqT9YKQ4ywom6 zIBle47EmTwcAGH0xgKkEuTEMYd+gvhyrjK32+CGng9rdAaUEaGnDlgvj43WQBoC1hUg Fp039gNDJQjIHUPuAM6nPkJCi5ezTCcmovk4gOXKIV8ryUuMAN1CxV/T79DoYzhFDQYg kbEdvYeuB4IMGQ+vpKB+O6oyDQ80i5ffweK5/54+rpeYMCPUuqWkQM7qDnXrsPY3o+SZ tr/dVhtB+oqSceg4VpqqguL/+ocqLY1sTtqlBroX8n/oiI+dlCsxIaaWmMdnwA4tin94 r+dQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=z2QCsj8uoI1elGSwjIcPM3flWlmV5asRjFaV2+Zm7wQ=; b=tIOsfrRDCYAVcX8+8lI3OdTCJDaeUKScDbYCM8dbfdDqLfnY/xQ4EWdYxP64u1SVRD LJflxN0uHYhYUN85cMOiO3umrQSVzjyNJYdvesuiIxFfeRvVUThvjKGKBvnzIAmU4E77 /wcWFG8EjBF7UjqZ+Z2Hxya889zBkQKtP8F770Xg3PfkZueZBReL21zBhInXMtDe/Nw6 87ga53rKipWQNf3pt/vkxNuOAGkC8vGWzSu/o5ZxY0pURD9qYULs5IKNsTUlOP/0Bv8c gcNF/doAXHL0XBNfxNrpBcuQDV9kzCWJS+5olVQsasNI0QPf3y7vZbKEYJtmlF1rhSOT 6a0Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530kaIHlO/UY6I6YiGVLFPB/ZD72ypZWHlco/HDHStf463o1lMPU o/pZ2ALLIIZPNz3CIV45wdkTIw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwGYQB/TCQqWjql20jclqCkpzSoRFFVoS5J1OXAL1VgIP3+MgHBaeuDfu3E2NL2tHQgwsHbvg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:45a4:: with SMTP id bp36mr457879qkb.51.1634656580587; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:16:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cpe-98-15-154-102.hvc.res.rr.com. [98.15.154.102]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z6sm734425qtj.90.2021.10.19.08.16.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:16:18 -0400 From: Johannes Weiner To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Kent Overstreet , Linus Torvalds , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , "Darrick J. Wong" , Christoph Hellwig , David Howells , Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: Folios for 5.15 request - Was: re: Folio discussion recap - Message-ID: References: <20211018231627.kqrnalsi74bgpoxu@box.shutemov.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20211018231627.kqrnalsi74bgpoxu@box.shutemov.name> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5115D7001A08 X-Stat-Signature: yrdqbewihgc5iws74sk98bbyucwu1rg9 Authentication-Results: imf02.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=cmpxchg-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.s=20210112 header.b=P0eGPUE0; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=cmpxchg.org; spf=pass (imf02.hostedemail.com: domain of hannes@cmpxchg.org designates 209.85.222.169 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hannes@cmpxchg.org X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-HE-Tag: 1634656579-586984 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 02:16:27AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 05:56:34PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > I don't think there will ever be consensus as long as you don't take > > > the concerns of other MM developers seriously. On Friday's call, several > > > people working on using large pages for anon memory told you that using > > > folios for anon memory would make their lives easier, and you didn't care. > > > > Nope, one person claimed that it would help, and I asked how. Not > > because I'm against typesafety, but because I wanted to know if there > > is an aspect in there that would specifically benefit from a shared > > folio type. I don't remember there being one, and I'm not against type > > safety for anon pages. > > > > What several people *did* say at this meeting was whether you could > > drop the anon stuff for now until we have consensus. > > My read on the meeting was that most of people had nothing against anon > stuff, but asked if Willy could drop anon parts to get past your > objections to move forward. > > You was the only person who was vocal against including anon pars. (Hugh > nodded to some of your points, but I don't really know his position on > folios in general and anon stuff in particular). Nobody likes to be the crazy person on the soapbox, so I asked Hugh in private a few weeks back. Quoting him, with permission: : To the first and second order of approximation, you have been : speaking for me: but in a much more informed and constructive and : coherent and rational way than I would have managed myself. It's a broad and open-ended proposal with far reaching consequences, and not everybody has the time (or foolhardiness) to engage on that. I wouldn't count silence as approval - just like I don't see approval as a sign that a person took a hard look at all the implications. My only effort from the start has been working out unanswered questions in this proposal: Are compound pages the reliable, scalable, and memory-efficient way to do bigger page sizes? What's the scope of remaining tailpages where typesafety will continue to lack? How do we implement code and properties shared by folios and non-folio types (like mmap/fault code for folio and network and driver pages)? There are no satisfying answers to any of these questions, but that also isn't very surprising: it's a huge scope. Lack of answers isn't failure, it's just a sign that the step size is too large and too dependent on a speculative future. It would have been great to whittle things down to a more incremental and concrete first step, which would have allowed us to keep testing the project against reality as we go through all the myriad of uses and cornercases of struct page that no single person can keep straight in their head. I'm grateful for the struct slab spinoff, I think it's exactly all of the above. I'm in full support of it and have dedicated time, effort and patches to help work out kinks that immediately and inevitably surfaced around the slab<->page boundary. I only hoped we could do the same for file pages first, learn from that, and then do anon pages; if they come out looking the same in the process, a unified folio would be a great trailing refactoring step. But alas here we are months later at the same impasse with the same open questions, and still talking in circles about speculative code. I don't have more time to invest into this, and I'm tired of the vitriol and ad-hominems both in public and in private channels. I'm not really sure how to exit this. The reasons for my NAK are still there. But I will no longer argue or stand in the way of the patches.