Re: Folios for 5.15 request - Was: re: Folio discussion recap -

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 19.10.21 17:16, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> 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.

Thanks Johannes for defending your position and I can understand that
you are running out of motivation+energy to defend further.

For the records: I was happy to see the slab refactoring, although I
raised some points regarding how to access properties that belong into
the "struct page". As raised elsewhere, I'd also be more comfortable
seeing small incremental changes/cleanups that are consistent even
without having decided on an ultimate end-goal -- this includes folios.
I'd be happy to see file-backed THP gaining their own, dedicated type
first ("struct $whatever"), before generalizing it to folios.

I'm writing this message solely to back your "not everybody has the time
(or foolhardiness) to engage on that. I wouldn't count silence as
approval.". While I do have the capacity to review smaller, incremental
steps (see struct slab), I don't have the time+energy to gasp the full
folio picture. So I also second "it's a huge scope. [...] it's just a
sign that the step size is too large and too dependent on a speculative
future."

My 2 cents on this topic.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb