From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: dirty pages as they are added to pagecache
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 20:46:21 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181019004621.GA30067@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6d6e4733-39aa-a958-c0a2-c5a47cdcc7d0@oracle.com>
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 04:16:40PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> I was not sure about this, and expected someone could come up with
> something better. It just seems there are filesystems like huegtlbfs,
> where it makes no sense wasting cycles traversing the filesystem. So,
> let's not even try.
>
> Hoping someone can come up with a better method than hard coding as
> I have done above.
It's not strictly required after marking the pages dirty though. The
real fix is the other one? Could we just drop the hardcoding and let
it run after the real fix is applied?
The performance of drop_caches doesn't seem critical, especially with
gigapages. tmpfs doesn't seem to be optimized away from drop_caches
and the gain would be bigger for tmpfs if THP is not enabled in the
mount, so I'm not sure if we should worry about hugetlbfs first.
Thanks,
Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-19 0:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-18 4:10 [PATCH] hugetlbfs: dirty pages as they are added to pagecache Mike Kravetz
2018-10-18 23:08 ` Andrew Morton
2018-10-18 23:16 ` Mike Kravetz
2018-10-19 0:46 ` Andrea Arcangeli [this message]
2018-10-19 1:47 ` Andrew Morton
2018-10-19 4:50 ` Mike Kravetz
2018-10-23 7:43 ` Michal Hocko
2018-10-23 17:30 ` Mike Kravetz
2018-10-23 17:41 ` Michal Hocko
2018-10-24 5:00 ` Khalid Aziz
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=20181019004621.GA30067@redhat.com \
--to=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.