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:   Fri, 3 Sep 2021 20:01:42 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Shijie Huang <shijie@amperemail.onmicrosoft.com>,
        song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, Frank Wang <zwang@amperecomputing.com>
Subject: Re: Is it possible to implement the per-node page cache for
 programs/libraries?
Message-ID: <YTJxFgD0kKPs51dz@casper.infradead.org>
References: <a2f423cf-9413-6bc8-e4d8-92374fc0449e@amperemail.onmicrosoft.com>
 <YS7yjcqA6txFHd99@casper.infradead.org>
 <1630552995.2mupnzoqzs.astroid@bobo.none>
 <YTCktV3KF9PzIACU@casper.infradead.org>
 <1630652670.aplcvu6g23.astroid@bobo.none>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1630652670.aplcvu6g23.astroid@bobo.none>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 05:10:31PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Excerpts from Matthew Wilcox's message of September 2, 2021 8:17 pm:
> > On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 01:25:36PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> >> > I have been thinking about this a bit; one of our internal performance
> >> > teams flagged the potential performance win to me a few months ago.
> >> > I don't have a concrete design for text replication yet; there have been
> >> > various attempts over the years, but none were particularly compelling.
> >> 
> >> What was not compelling about it?
> > 
> > It wasn't merged, so clearly it wasn't compelling enough?
> 
> Ha ha. It sounded like you had some reasons you didn't find it 
> particularly compelling :P

I haven't studied it in detail, but it seems to me that your patch (from
2007!) chooses whether to store pages or pcache_desc pointers in i_pages.
Was there a reason you chose to do it that way instead of having per-node
i_mapping pointers?  (And which way would you choose to do it now, given
the infrastructure we have now?)