Re: [PATCH] shmem: avoid huge pages for small files

[Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>]

On 10/21/2016 03:50 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 06:00:07PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 04:01:18PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> To me, most of things you're talking about is highly dependent on access
>> pattern generated by userspace:
>>
>>   - we may want to allocate huge pages from byte 1 if we know that file
>>     will grow;
> 
> delayed allocation takes care of that. We use a growing speculative
> delalloc size that kicks in at specific sizes and can be used
> directly to determine if a large page shoul dbe allocated. This code
> is aware of sparse files, sparse writes, etc.

OK, so somebody does a write() of 1 byte.  We can delay the underlying
block allocation for a long time, but we can *not* delay the memory
allocation.  We've got to decide before the write() returns.

How does delayed allocation help with that decision?

I guess we could (always?) allocate small pages up front, and then only
bother promoting them once the FS delayed-allocation code kicks in and
is *also* giving us underlying large allocations.  That punts the logic
to the filesystem, which is a bit counterintuitive, but it seems
relatively sane.

>>> As such, there is no way we should be considering different
>>> interfaces and methods for configuring the /same functionality/ just
>>> because DAX is enabled or not. It's the /same decision/ that needs
>>> to be made, and the filesystem knows an awful lot more about whether
>>> huge pages can be used efficiently at the time of access than just
>>> about any other actor you can name....
>>
>> I'm not convinced that filesystem is in better position to see access
>> patterns than mm for page cache. It's not all about on-disk layout.
> 
> Spoken like a true mm developer. IO performance is all about IO
> patterns, and the primary contributor to bad IO patterns is bad
> filesystem allocation patterns.... :P

For writes, I think you have a good point.  Managing a horribly
fragmented file with larger pages and eating the associated write
magnification that comes along with it seems like a recipe for disaster.

But, Isn't some level of disconnection between the page cache and the
underlying IO patterns a *good* thing?  Once we've gone to the trouble
of bringing some (potentially very fragmented) data into the page cache,
why _not_ manage it in a lower-overhead way if we can?  For read-only
data it seems like a no-brainer that we'd want things in as large of a
management unit as we can get.

IOW, why let the underlying block allocation layout hamstring how the
memory is managed?

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>