Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/5 V2] Huge page backed user-space stacks

Mel Gorman
2008-08-05T11:11:48Z

On (04/08/08 14:10), Dave Hansen didst pronounce:
> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 11:31 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > We are a lot more reliable than we were although exact quantification is
> > difficult because it's workload dependent. For a long time, I've been able
> > to test bits and pieces with hugepages by allocating the pool at the time
> > I needed it even after days of uptime. Previously this required a reboot.
>
> This is also a pretty big expansion of fs/hugetlb/ use outside of the
> filesystem itself. It is hacking the existing shared memory
> kernel-internal user to spit out effectively anonymous memory.
>
> Where do we draw the line where we stop using the filesystem for this?
> Other than the immediate code reuse, does it gain us anything?
>
> I have to think that actually refactoring the filesystem code and making
> it usable for really anonymous memory, then using *that* in these
> patches would be a lot more sane. Especially for someone that goes to
> look at it in a year. :)
>

See, that's great until you start dealing with MAP_SHARED|MAP_ANONYMOUS.
To get that right between children, you end up something very fs-like
when the child needs to fault in a page that is already populated by the
parent. I strongly suspect we end up back at hugetlbfs backing it :/

If you were going to do such a thing, you'd end up converting something
like ramfs to hugetlbfs and sharing that.

--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab