Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-176122-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 11:53:51 -0700
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <christoph@lameter.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@samsung.com>,
	Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
	"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"hughd@google.com" <hughd@google.com>,
	"ioworker0@gmail.com" <ioworker0@gmail.com>,
	"wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com" <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
	"ying.huang@intel.com" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
	"21cnbao@gmail.com" <21cnbao@gmail.com>,
	"ryan.roberts@arm.com" <ryan.roberts@arm.com>,
	"shy828301@gmail.com" <shy828301@gmail.com>,
	"ziy@nvidia.com" <ziy@nvidia.com>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] add mTHP support for anonymous shmem
Message-ID: <Zj5tP7k1muaCDtO_@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <cover.1714978902.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
 <CGME20240508113934eucas1p13a3972f3f9955365f40155e084a7c7d5@eucas1p1.samsung.com>
 <fqtaxc5pgu3zmvbdad4w6xty5iozye7v5z2b5ckqcjv273nz7b@hhdrjwf6rai3>
 <f44dc19a-e117-4418-9114-b723c5dc1178@redhat.com>
 <ZjvRPLaXQewA8K4s@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <23ea6dbd-1d4e-4aeb-900b-646db880cfb6@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <23ea6dbd-1d4e-4aeb-900b-646db880cfb6@redhat.com>
Sender: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@infradead.org>

On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 07:48:46PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 08.05.24 21:23, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> >  From my perspective the more shared code the better, and the more shared
> > paths the better. There is a chance to help test swap with large folios
> > instead of splitting the folios for swap, and that would could be done
> > first with tmpfs. I have not evaluated the difference in testing or how
> > we could get the most of shared code if we take a mTHP approach or the
> > iomap approach for tmpfs, that should be considered.
> 
> I don't have a clear picture yet of what might be best for ordinary shmem
> (IOW, not MAP_SHARED|MAP_PRIVATE), and I'm afraid there is no easy answer.

OK so it sounds like the different options needs to be thought out and
reviewed.

> As long as we don't end up wasting memory, it's not obviously bad.

Sure.

> But some
> things might be tricky (see my example about large folios stranding in shmem
> and never being able to be really reclaimed+reused for better purposes)

Where is that stated BTW? Could that be resolved?

> I'll note that mTHP really is just (supposed to be) a user interface to
> enable the various folio sizes (well, and to expose better per-size stats),
> not more.

Sure but given filesystems using large folios don't have silly APIs for
using which large folios to enable, it just seems odd for tmpfs to take
a different approach.

> From that point of view, it's just a filter. Enable all, and you get the
> same behavior as you likely would in the pagecache mode.

Which begs the quesiton, *why* have an API to just constrain to certain
large folios, which diverges from what filesystems are doing with large
folios?

> > Are there other things to consider? Does this require some dialog at
> > LSFMM?
> 
> As raised in my reply to Daniel, I'll be at LSF/MM and happy to discuss. I'm
> also not a SHMEM expert, so I'm hoping at some point we'd get feedback from
> Hugh.

Hugh, will you be at LSFMM?

  Luis