From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f169.google.com (mail-pf0-f169.google.com [209.85.192.169]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E1906B0253 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 16:47:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pf0-f169.google.com with SMTP id w128so75483566pfb.2 for ; Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:47:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com. [192.55.52.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id tm2si32696219pac.109.2016.03.01.13.47.21 for ; Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:47:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 16:47:18 -0500 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Support for 1GB THP Message-ID: <20160301214718.GK3730@linux.intel.com> References: <20160301070911.GD3730@linux.intel.com> <20160301122036.GB19559@node.shutemov.name> 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: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 10:32:52AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > - Can we get rid of PAGE_CACHE_SIZE now? Finally? Pretty please? > > > > +1 :) > > We have had grandiouse visions of being free of that particular set of > chains for more than 10 years now. Sadly nothing really was that appealing > and the current state of THP support is not that encouraging as well. We > rather go with static huge page support to have more control over how > memory is laid out for a process. With Kirill's fault-around code in place, I think it delivers all or most of the benefits promised by increasing PAGE_CACHE_SIZE. -- 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