From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/3] i915: convert to new mount API
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 00:50:10 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1908060007190.1941@eggly.anvils> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190805182834.GI1131@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 07:12:55PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 01:03:06AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > tmpfs does not set ->remount_fs() anymore and its users need
> > > to be converted to new mount API.
> >
> > Could you explain why the devil do you bother with remount at all?
> > Why not pass the right options when mounting the damn thing?
>
> ... and while we are at it, I really wonder what's going on with
> that gemfs thing - among the other things, this is the only
> user of shmem_file_setup_with_mnt(). Sure, you want your own
> options, but that brings another question - is there any reason
> for having the huge=... per-superblock rather than per-file?
Yes: we want a default for how files of that superblock are to
allocate their pages, without people having to fcntl or advise
each of their files.
Setting aside the weirder options (within_size, advise) and emergency/
testing override (shmem_huge), we want files on an ordinary default
tmpfs (huge=never) to be allocated with small pages (so users with
access to that filesystem will not consume, and will not waste time
and space on consuming, the more valuable huge pages); but files on a
huge=always tmpfs to be allocated with huge pages whenever possible.
Or am I missing your point? Yes, hugeness can certainly be decided
differently per-file, or even per-extent of file. That is already
made possible through "judicious" use of madvise MADV_HUGEPAGE and
MADV_NOHUGEPAGE on mmaps of the file, carried over from anon THP.
Though personally I'm averse to managing "f"objects through
"m"interfaces, which can get ridiculous (notably, MADV_HUGEPAGE works
on the virtual address of a mapping, but the huge-or-not alignment of
that mapping must have been decided previously). In Google we do use
fcntls F_HUGEPAGE and F_NOHUGEPAGE to override on a per-file basis -
one day I'll get to upstreaming those.
Hugh
>
> After all, the readers of ->huge in mm/shmem.c are
> mm/shmem.c:582: (shmem_huge == SHMEM_HUGE_FORCE || sbinfo->huge) &&
> is_huge_enabled(), sbinfo is an explicit argument
>
> mm/shmem.c:1799: switch (sbinfo->huge) {
> shmem_getpage_gfp(), sbinfo comes from inode
>
> mm/shmem.c:2113: if (SHMEM_SB(sb)->huge == SHMEM_HUGE_NEVER)
> shmem_get_unmapped_area(), sb comes from file
>
> mm/shmem.c:3531: if (sbinfo->huge)
> mm/shmem.c:3532: seq_printf(seq, ",huge=%s", shmem_format_huge(sbinfo->huge));
> ->show_options()
> mm/shmem.c:3880: switch (sbinfo->huge) {
> shmem_huge_enabled(), sbinfo comes from an inode
>
> And the only caller of is_huge_enabled() is shmem_getattr(), with sbinfo
> picked from inode.
>
> So is there any reason why the hugepage policy can't be per-file, with
> the current being overridable default?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-06 7:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-05 16:03 [PATCHv2 0/3] convert i915 to new mount API Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-08-05 16:03 ` [PATCHv2 1/3] fs: export put_filesystem() Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-08-05 16:03 ` [PATCHv2 2/3] i915: convert to new mount API Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-08-05 18:12 ` Al Viro
2019-08-05 18:28 ` Al Viro
2019-08-06 7:50 ` Hugh Dickins [this message]
2019-08-07 6:30 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-08 1:23 ` Al Viro
2019-08-08 15:54 ` Hugh Dickins
2019-08-08 16:23 ` Chris Wilson
2019-08-08 17:03 ` Matthew Auld
2019-08-08 1:21 ` Al Viro
2019-08-05 23:33 ` Al Viro
2019-08-06 1:20 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-08-05 16:03 ` [PATCHv2 3/3] i915: do not leak module ref counter Sergey Senozhatsky
2019-08-05 19:34 ` [PATCHv2 0/3] convert i915 to new mount API Sedat Dilek
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=alpine.LSU.2.11.1908060007190.1941@eggly.anvils \
--to=hughd@google.com \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
--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 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).