From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM ATTEND] Memory management -- THP, hugetlb, scalability
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 00:59:34 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140110225934.GA8951@node.dhcp.inet.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140110225116.GA5722@linux.intel.com>
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 05:51:16PM -0500, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 07:42:04PM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 03:13:21PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > I think transparent huge pagecache is likely to crop up for more than one
> > > reason. There is the TLB issue and the motivation that i-TLB pressure is
> > > a problem in some specialised cases. Whatever the merits of that case,
> > > transparent hugepage cache has been raised as a potential solution for
> > > some VM scalability problems. I recognise that dealing with large numbers
> > > of struct pages is now a problem on larger machines (although I have not
> > > seen quantified data on the problem nor do I have access to a machine large
> > > enough to measure it myself) but I'm wary of transparent hugepage cache
> > > being treated as a primary solution for VM scalability problems. Lacking
> > > performance data I have no suggestions on what these alternative solutions
> > > might look like.
>
> Something I'd like to see discussed (but don't have the MM chops to
> lead a discussion on myself) is the PAGE_CACHE_SIZE vs PAGE_SIZE split.
> This needs to be either fixed or removed, IMO. It's been in the tree
> since before git history began (ie before 2005), it imposes a reasonably
> large cognitive burden on programmers ("what kind of page size do I want
> here?"), it's not intuitively obvious (to a non-mm person) which page
> size is which, and it's never actually bought us anything because it's
> always been the same!
>
> Also, it bitrots. Look at this:
>
> pgoff_t pgoff = (((address & PAGE_MASK)
> - vma->vm_start) >> PAGE_SHIFT) + vma->vm_pgoff;
> vmf.pgoff = pgoff;
> pgoff_t offset = vmf->pgoff;
> size = (i_size_read(inode) + PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - 1) >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT;
> if (offset >= size)
> return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
>
> That's spread over three functions, but that goes to illustrate my point;
> getting this stuff right is Hard; core mm developers get it wrong, we
> don't have the right types to document whether a variable is in PAGE_SIZE
> or PAGE_CACHE_SIZE units, and we're not getting any benefit from it today.
I also want to drop PAGE_CACHE_*. It's on my todo list almost a year now ;)
> > Sibling topic is THP for XIP (see Matthew's patchset). Guys want to manage
> > persistent memory in 2M chunks where it's possible. And THP (but without
> > struct page in this case) is the obvious solution.
>
> Not just 2MB, we also want 1GB pages for some special cases. It looks
> doable (XFS can allocate aligned 1GB blocks). I've written some
> supporting code that will at least get us to the point where we can
> insert a 1GB page. I haven't been able to test anything yet.
It's probably doable from fs point of view, but adding PUD-level THP page
is not trivial at all. I think it's more productive better to concentrate
on 2M for now.
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-10 22:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-03 12:25 [LSF/MM ATTEND] Memory management -- THP, hugetlb, scalability Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-01-08 15:13 ` [Lsf-pc] " Mel Gorman
2014-01-10 17:42 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-01-10 22:51 ` Matthew Wilcox
2014-01-10 22:59 ` Kirill A. Shutemov [this message]
2014-01-11 1:49 ` Matthew Wilcox
2014-01-11 2:55 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
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=20140110225934.GA8951@node.dhcp.inet.fi \
--to=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=willy@linux.intel.com \
/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).