From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 10:03:36 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: Hugh Dickins , Dave Hansen , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Andrea Arcangeli , Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka , Christoph Lameter , Naoya Horiguchi , Jerome Marchand , Yang Shi , Sasha Levin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: THP-enabled filesystem vs. FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE Message-ID: <20160306230336.GE11282@dastard> References: <1457023939-98083-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20160304112603.GA9790@node.shutemov.name> <56D9C882.3040808@intel.com> <20160304230548.GC11282@dastard> <20160304232412.GC12498@node.shutemov.name> <20160305223811.GD11282@dastard> <20160306003034.GA13704@node.shutemov.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160306003034.GA13704@node.shutemov.name> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 03:30:34AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 09:38:11AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 02:24:12AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > Would it be acceptable for fallocate(FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) to return > > > -EBUSY (or other errno on your choice), if we cannot split the page > > > right away? > > > > Which means THP are not transparent any more. What does an > > application do when it gets an EBUSY, anyway? > > I guess it's reasonable to expect from an application to handle EOPNOTSUPP > as FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE is not supported by some filesystems. Yes, but this is usually done as a check at the program initialisation to determine whether to issue hole punches at all. It's not suppose to be a dynamic error. > Although, non-consistent result from the same fd can be confusing. Exactly. > > And it's not just hole punching that has this problem. Direct IO is > > going to have the same issue with invalidation of the mapped ranges > > over the IO being done. XFS already WARNs when page cache > > invalidation fails with EBUSY in direct IO, because that is > > indicative of an application with a potential data corruption vector > > and there's nothing we can do in the kernel code to prevent it. > > My current understanding is that for filesystems with persistent storage, > in order to make THP any useful, we would need to implement writeback > without splitting the huge page. Algorithmically it is no different to filesytem block size < page size writeback. > At the moment, I have no idea how hard it would be.. THP support would effectively require us to remove PAGE_CACHE_SIZE assumptions from all of the filesystem and buffer code. That's a large chunk of work e.g. fs/buffer.c and any filesystem that uses bufferheads for tracking filesystem block state through the page cache. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- 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: email@kvack.org