From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:34:04 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Andrew Morton , Alexander Viro , Linus Torvalds , Matthew Wilcox , Hugh Dickins , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] fs, mm: get rid of PAGE_CACHE_* and page_cache_{get,release} macros Message-ID: <20160321163404.GA141069@black.fi.intel.com> References: <1458561998-126622-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:25:09AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2016, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > PAGE_CACHE_{SIZE,SHIFT,MASK,ALIGN} macros were introduced *long* time ago > > with promise that one day it will be possible to implement page cache with > > bigger chunks than PAGE_SIZE. > > > > This promise never materialized. And unlikely will. > > So we decided that we are never going to put THP pages on a LRU? Err?.. What? We do have anon-THP pages on LRU. My huge tmpfs patchset also put file-THPs on LRU list. The patchset has nothing to do with THP or them being on LRU. > Will this actually work if we have really huge memory (100s of TB) where > almost everything is a huge page? Guess we have to use hugetlbfs and we > need to think about this as being exempt from paging. Sorry, I failed to understand your message. Look on huge tmpfs patchset. It allows both small and huge pages in page cache. Anyway, it's out of scope of the patchset. -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- 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