Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: another way to set large folio by remembering inode number

[Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>]

On 05/26, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 09:52:40PM +0000, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > It seems... surprising that the additional I/O operations are actually
> > > throttloing UFS device bandwidth by 2x (4GB/s vs 2GB/s).  Have you dug
> > > into why this is happening, and whether there is anything that can be
> > > optimized below the file system?
> > 
> > I can't tell the exact size tho, roughly it's between 1GB and
> > 4GB. And, per lots of test results with various tunings, it turned
> > out memory allocation speed was the culprit. If we use 4KB page, we
> > couldn't get the full bandwidth unless we set the biggest core
> > running the highest frequency.
> 
> OK, if we assume that the model file that you want to load is is 2GB
> then the number of 4k pages that you need is a bit over half a million
> (524288).  So if it take 1 second with large folios (2 GB/s as you
> stated above), and half-second without (4 GB/s), then you're basically
> saying that it was costing you half-second to allocate 524288
> singleton pages.  And the whole point of this exercise is to save that
> half second?
> 
> And I assume that these timing was using a performance cores, and part
> of the goal here is to be able to use an efficiency core instead.
> 
> Did I get that right?

Yes, right.

> 
> > > But the problem with using small folios is that if you want to
> > > actually *use* the memory, unless you want to segment out the memory
> > > so it can't be used for anything other than the AI models (e.g., by
> > > using somthing like hugetlbfs) it's just going to break up the memory
> > > into smaller folios.  So that's not actually going to *help* in actual
> > > real life use cases.  It might help for your artificial benchmarks /
> > > experiments, but in the real life case where Android applications are
> > > running and fragmenting all of the device memory, the large folios
> > > won't be available *anyway*.
> > 
> > Agreed it's hard to get this done perfectly tho, as the best effort on this
> > particular AI model case, I focused on two timings when loading the models:
> > 1) right after device boot, 2) dynamic loading when required. To secure high
> > order pages, for 1), I disabled the large folio consumed by EROFS, while for
> > 2), I tried to call compact_memory before loading the model. Both of cases,
> > I could observe we could get fair amount of large folios. Yes, not 100% tho.
> 
> If (1) is a common case in real life, the thing to do would be grab
> 2GB of large folios early in the startup sequence, and then letting
> erofs do its thing --- and then at the end of the startup, right before you
> load the model, you can release the 2GB worth of large folios.
> 
> (That being said, I'm guessing #1 is actually not that interesting,
> since as a percentage of the time that it takes for an Android device
> to startup, is adding an extra half-second *really* going to be
> noticeable by the user?)
> 
> But for case #2, that's the much more challenging case.  If you don't
> call compact_memory() you're going to burn half a second to allocate
> the 4k pages, since the large folios won't be available.  But if you
> *do* call compact_memory() in a production ROM, depending fragmented the
> memory is and how much memory have, calling compat_memory() could take
> **minutes**.  So what's the point?
> 
> The bottom line is if it's right after device boot, there are simple
> techniques that don't require hacking up the f2fs.  But in the
> demand-loaded case, calling compact_memory() is the last thing you'll
> want to do.  You're better either asking the mm to allocate the 4k
> pages, or do whatever compaction it can do to just free up 2GB worth
> of folios.  (Calling compact_memory() is overkill, and only makes
> sense in the context of benchmark / proof of concept demo.)
> 
> Either way, trying to get file systems to avoid using large folios in
> the hopes that this will speed up large AI model loading.... doesn't
> seem to make sense.
> 
> If the problem is fundamentally about making 2GB worth of large folios
> available in a way that takes significantly less time that just
> allocating the model using half-million 4k pages, that's the question
> that we should be asking Matthew and the mm folks.  Which is why it
> was too bad we didn't raise this issue at LSF/MM earlier this month.

Thanks for the context. To clarify a piece I missed earlier: the model pages
are also utilized for inference. Our data shows that larger chunks yield
higher inference speeds. Consequently, I required high-order pages to optimize
both read throughput and inference latency. I will halt my current efforts
and wait for alternative suggestions.

> 
> > Indeed, I was off from LSF/MM for years due to various product issues, not
> > related F2FS tho. Let me make some effort to attend upcoming ones like LPC,
> > if I can get the budget from company.
> 
> Next time, as a suggestion, feel free to raise the issue when the
> LSF/MM CFP goes out, even if you don't think it's likely you will get
> an invite.  Indeed, with a sufficiently interesting topic, that's the
> way to *get* an invitation.  It will require breaking down the
> technical requires as you and I have done for the last few messages on
> this thread.
> 
> Even if you can't attend LSF/MM due to time or budget reasons, there
> are a number of your colleagues who are attending, who could raise the
> question on your behalf.  I've been known to do that once or twice on
> behalf of other Google teams.  But it does require that you approach
> the usual LSF/MM suspects a good 2-3 months before the conference so
> we can help you craft the an appropriate response to the CFP.

Thanks for the suggestion. Will definitely do.

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 					- Ted
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel