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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D31DC433F5 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 23:13:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCFED61152 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 23:13:45 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org DCFED61152 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 0F9286B0071; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 19:13:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 08BFB900002; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 19:13:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id E63D76B0073; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 19:13:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0080.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.80]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0D1F6B0071 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 19:13:44 -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 849B2183C0417 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 23:13:44 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78598619568.19.FB64A92 Received: from mail-qt1-f171.google.com (mail-qt1-f171.google.com [209.85.160.171]) by imf11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F396F000207 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 23:13:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt1-f171.google.com with SMTP id x5so10145194qtq.13 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 16:13:43 -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=WvStkWEONyoI89jczNA46zkJFi1B00WTIBUldmnucWA=; b=GnxUObmKo72rWvaUEWgCN6A6rnlgat7y67MnCheWDPis6UcdBSkLUXjaFXw1NyK+gt Cwq763rGlcAfuMnQzXbKWGixgHA4MkdM/IthGmiY03SEGC5nIStr9RTTHc1moqi3+l7u JyU7XKBGN/1H//94k5aoydPNo8LafO9EeLSt/dWk+oNgTxTCpzD73a8ZWXSguLcSe4sK KfZBvpX+MBdiSaOZifKJpXbbw/uqP+tna0RXwfwpLmtpl96CSC7P/HP+ychHew362jqM E2hUVmnoBFSq3pyQrRmK4yVltMcESwiwhd4mKsLV7lJUemBvCJh7rL6whtGl51B3gT9e HEtA== 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=WvStkWEONyoI89jczNA46zkJFi1B00WTIBUldmnucWA=; b=1LZsaHV1MebbQCuoNr4qo052AbU7qgWW2V+Rkwu787oxTwOK+cExgXDJx8Wj8yrItB hDx3y7hY4iWG4PEBAGieupXlRN3jyfC0eFJqeTAtN5kiMC216PTB4578auWDA+Rm60m5 VoL32qiowuNjeOb2Ly/Ty4YpTqgFK/4giBxojBTxUsHlzxtCGgZNwAdzaVSKd3HBGFI/ bkpdm7jHJtcN4rXdHZveu/yaO/LNqJhYTyyVk6g757WmkbisKJPBrBz+lNOvzOqZxOBf wZS5TbTdai4+8miTQEPPdzKQs50kmSG/Yi8wD2h4WIzhse7e5Z0k4iZAhPf45PWZvRi3 1Kng== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531pohZarAvcTy0ERduVFhrmLFO3qpbgGMDcLoy1DM/Go93sEvQW BAKrFCCVearm1pLIHfpTOOetcA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyejXJYq9o/ujHepN1pUktkQ1bF6z16rKzRI+uE+VqOCntzSq9GIzsYhHgZk8O03odAUsg70g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:190a:: with SMTP id w10mr4358606qtc.300.1631920423410; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 16:13:43 -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 m6sm4907016qti.38.2021.09.17.16.13.42 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 17 Sep 2021 16:13:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 19:15:40 -0400 From: Johannes Weiner To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: Dave Chinner , "Darrick J. Wong" , Kent Overstreet , Matthew Wilcox , Linus Torvalds , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , David Howells Subject: Re: Folio discussion recap Message-ID: References: <20210916025854.GE34899@magnolia> <20210917052440.GJ1756565@dread.disaster.area> <20210917205735.tistsacwwzkcdklx@box.shutemov.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210917205735.tistsacwwzkcdklx@box.shutemov.name> Authentication-Results: imf11.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=cmpxchg-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.s=20210112 header.b=GnxUObmK; spf=pass (imf11.hostedemail.com: domain of hannes@cmpxchg.org designates 209.85.160.171 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hannes@cmpxchg.org; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=cmpxchg.org X-Rspamd-Server: rspam06 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 1F396F000207 X-Stat-Signature: x4gfi4u5w3ysgz9fuisnpqn7iy6n3h3u X-HE-Tag: 1631920424-536621 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 Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 11:57:35PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 12:31:36PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > I didn't suggest to change what the folio currently already is for the > > page cache. I asked to keep anon pages out of it (and in the future > > potentially other random stuff that is using compound pages). > > It would mean that anon-THP cannot benefit from the work Willy did with > folios. Anon-THP is the most active user of compound pages at the moment > and it also suffers from the compound_head() plague. You ask to exclude > anon-THP siting *possible* future benefits for pagecache. > > Sorry, but this doesn't sound fair to me. Hold on Kirill. I'm not saying we shouldn't fix anonthp. But let's clarify the actual code in question in this specific patchset. You say anonthp cannot benefit from folio, but in the other email you say this patchset isn't doing the conversion yet. The code I'm specifically referring to here is the conversion of some code that encounters both anon and file pages - swap.c, memcontrol.c, workingset.c, and a few other places. It's a small part of the folio patches, but it's a big deal for the MM code conceptually. I'm requesting to drop those and just keep the page cache bits. Not because I think anonthp shouldn't be fixed, but because I think we're not in agreement yet on how they should be fixed. And it's somewhat independent of fixing the page cache interface now that people are waiting on much more desparately and acutely than we inside MM wait for a struct page cleanup. It's not good to hold them while we argue. Dropping the anon bits isn't final. Depending on how our discussion turns out, we can still put them in later or we can put in something new. The important thing is that the uncontroversial page cache bits aren't held up any longer while we figure it out. > If you want to limit usage of the new type to pagecache, the burden on you > to prove that it is useful and not just a dead weight. I'm not asking to add anything to the folio patches, just to remove some bits around the edges. And for the page cache bits: I think we have a rather large number of folks really wanting those. Now. Again, I think we should fix anonthp. But I also think we should really look at struct page more broadly. And I think we should have that discussion inside a forum of MM people that truly care. I'm just trying to unblock the fs folks at this point and merge what we can now.