From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
To: Liu Yintao <liuyuntao10@huawei.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
kirill@shutemov.name, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, liusirui@huawei.com, windspectator@gmail.com,
wuxu.wu@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fix judgment error in shmem_is_huge()
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 17:15:19 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <614538e2-16bb-2657-f374-64195c5c7c2@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8a5bc69-193e-9b4a-2161-b03b69eebed2@google.com>
On Fri, 24 Sep 2021, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021, Liu Yuntao wrote:
>
> > In the case of SHMEM_HUGE_WITHIN_SIZE, the page index is not rounded
> > up correctly. When the page index points to the first page in a huge
> > page, round_up() cannot bring it to the end of the huge page, but
> > to the end of the previous one.
> >
> > an example:
> > HPAGE_PMD_NR on my machine is 512(2 MB huge page size).
> > After allcoating a 3000 KB buffer, I access it at location 2050 KB.
>
> Your example is certainly helpful, but weird! It's not impossible,
> but wouldn't it be easier to understand if you said "2048 KB" there?
>
> > In shmem_is_huge(), the corresponding index happens to be 512.
> > After rounded up by HPAGE_PMD_NR, it will still be 512 which is
> > smaller than i_size, and shmem_is_huge() will return true.
> > As a result, my buffer takes an additional huge page, and that
> > shouldn't happen when shmem_enabled is set to within_size.
>
> A colleague very recently opened my eyes to within_size on shmem_enabled:
> I've always been dubious of both, but they can work quite well together.
>
> >
> > Fixes: f3f0e1d2150b2b ("khugepaged: add support of collapse for tmpfs/shmem pages")
> > Signed-off-by: Liu Yuntao <liuyuntao10@huawei.com>
>
> Thanks, with a nice simplification from Kirill.
>
> Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Andrew has just sent this on to Linus - thanks - and that's fine:
no need to get in the way of that.
But since replying, I have remembered more history, and there is
something that we need to be aware of.
Whereas to you this is a straightforward off-by-one (or off-by-page)
fix, it also results in a significant change in behaviour - I'd say
usually for the better, but some might be surprised. This patch has
Kirill's Ack and my Ack, and I hope and believe that we can get away
with the change in behaviour: but let's be aware of it.
The change that concerns me is when, for example, copying a large
file into a huge=within_size tmpfs (or more generally, just writing
to the file by appending at EOF in the usual way).
With the old WITHIN_SIZE code, the first 2MB was allocated in small
pages, then subsequent 2MB extents were allocated with huge pages;
including the final extent, even if it only needed a single byte.
I always thought that was very clunky behaviour, the small pages
coming at the wrong end of the file; and that's why I was dubious
about it as a sensible filesystem mount option. But I was under
the impression that it was the intended behaviour.
With your new WITHIN_SIZE code, all those appending allocations
are outside i_size, and the whole file is allocated in small pages.
(Then maybe later on khugepaged can assemble huge pages for it.)
Your patch makes within_size more sensible than it was for pre-sized
files (and I think it's fair to say that the majority of files in
shmem's internal mount, subject to thp/shmem_enabled, are likely to
be fixed-size files); and better-defined than it used to be on
growing files, but they won't get the huge pages they used to.
Hugh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-25 0:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-09 3:20 [PATCH v2] fix judgment error in shmem_is_huge() Liu Yuntao
2021-09-09 6:17 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2021-09-24 21:31 ` Hugh Dickins
2021-09-25 0:15 ` Hugh Dickins [this message]
2021-09-26 6:42 ` liuyuntao
2021-09-26 20:01 ` Hugh Dickins
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=614538e2-16bb-2657-f374-64195c5c7c2@google.com \
--to=hughd@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=liusirui@huawei.com \
--cc=liuyuntao10@huawei.com \
--cc=windspectator@gmail.com \
--cc=wuxu.wu@huawei.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).