Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 3 Jun 2020 15:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,thp: stop leaking unreleased file pages
In-Reply-To: <20200603215122.GR19604@bombadil.infradead.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.2006031506500.32284@eggly.anvils>
References: <alpine.LSU.2.11.2005231837500.1766@eggly.anvils> <20200526160140.GC850116@cmpxchg.org> <alpine.LSU.2.11.2005271402410.6459@eggly.anvils> <20200603215122.GR19604@bombadil.infradead.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LSU 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 02:28:10PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Saying "source inspection" reminds me: there is another funny in there,
> > but I don't think it matters very much in practice, and might need
> > rather a lot of testing to justify any particular patch: where
> > page_cache_sync_readahead() asks for PAGE_SIZE pages!
> > 
> > "end - index" seems a more reasonable number to me: but then we
> > might find that reading ahead into the next huge extent had actually
> > been a useful optimization (and those readahead functions impose
> > their own caps, so PAGE_SIZE shouldn't work out too outrageously).
> 
> That readahead was only added in 99cb0dbd47a15d395bf3faa78dc122bc5efe3fc0
> so it probably hasn't really been performance tested yet.

I can well imagine that an entirely new body of code, exercised
in the background by khugepaged, will not be a leading candidate for
performance comparisons - rightly so; but arguing that by the commit
being in the tree for only eight months seems... odd :)

Hugh