Re: [PATCH v3] mm: shmem: always support large folios for internal shmem mount

Baolin Wang
2026-04-22T06:28:40Z

CC Kefeng,

On 4/21/26 9:39 PM, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 4/21/26 08:27, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/21/26 3:00 AM, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>>> On 4/17/26 14:45, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. Good point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not really. There could be files created before remount whose mappings
>>>> don't support large folios (with 'huge=never' option), while files
>>>> created after remount will have mappings that support large folios (if
>>>> remounted with 'huge=always' option).
>>>>
>>>> It looks like the previous commit 5a90c155defa was also problematic. The
>>>> huge mount option has introduced a lot of tricky issues:(
>>>>
>>>> Now I think Zi's previous suggestion should be able to clean up this
>>>> mess? That is, calling mapping_set_large_folios() unconditionally for
>>>> all shmem mounts, and revisiting Kefeng's first version to fix the
>>>> performance issue.
>>>
>>> Okay, so you'll send a patch to just set mapping_set_large_folios()
>>> unconditionally?
>>
>> I'm still hesitating on this. If we set mapping_set_large_folios()
>> unconditionally, we need to re-fix the performance regression that was
>> addressed by commit 5a90c155defa.
>
> Just so I can follow: where is the test for large folios that we would
> unlock large folios and cause a regression?

I spent some time investigating the performance regression that was
addressed by commit 5a90c155defa ("tmpfs: don't enable large folios if
not supported"). From my testing, I found that the performance issue no
longer exists on upstream:

mount tmpfs -t tmpfs -o size=50G /mnt/tmpfs

Base:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/tmpfs/test bs=400K count=10485 (3.2 GB/s)
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/tmpfs/test bs=800K count=5242 (3.2 GB/s)
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/tmpfs/test bs=1600K count=2621 (3.1 GB/s)
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/tmpfs/test bs=2200K count=1906 (3.0 GB/s )
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/tmpfs/test bs=3000K count=1398 (3.0 GB/s)
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/tmpfs/test bs=4500K count=932 (3.1 GB/s)

Base + revert 5a90c155defa:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/tmpfs/test bs=400K count=10485 (3.3 GB/s)
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/tmpfs/test bs=800K count=5242 (3.3 GB/s)
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/tmpfs/test bs=1600K count=2621 (3.2 GB/s)
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/tmpfs/test bs=2200K count=1906 (3.1 GB/s)
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/tmpfs/testbs=3000K count=1398 (3.0 GB/s)
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/tmpfs/test bs=4500K count=932 (3.1 GB/s)

The data is basically consistent with minor fluctuation noise.

Later, I continued investigating and found that commit 665575cff098b
("filemap: move prefaulting out of hot write path") fixed the write
operation performance.

Base + revert 665575cff098b + revert 5a90c155defa:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/tmpfs/test bs=400K count=10485 (3.0 GB/s)
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/tmpfs/test bs=800K count=5242 (2.9 GB/s)
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/tmpfs/test bs=1600K count=2621 (2.6 GB/s)
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/tmpfs/test bs=2200K count=1906 (2.6 GB/s)
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/tmpfs/test bs=3000K count=1398 (2.5 GB/s)
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/tmpfs/test bs=4500K count=932 (2.5 GB/s)

We can see that after reverting commit 665575cff098b, there is a
noticeable drop in write performance for tmpfs files.

So my conclusion is that we can now safely revert commit 5a90c155defa to
set mapping_set_large_folios() for all shmem mounts unconditionally.

Kefeng, please correct me if I missed anything.