[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: dirty pages as they are added to pagecache
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 20:46:21 -0400 Andrea Arcangeli <> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 04:16:40PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > I was not sure about this, and expected someone could come up with
> > something better. It just seems there are filesystems like huegtlbfs,
> > where it makes no sense wasting cycles traversing the filesystem. So,
> > let's not even try.
> >
> > Hoping someone can come up with a better method than hard coding as
> > I have done above.
> It's not strictly required after marking the pages dirty though. The
> real fix is the other one? Could we just drop the hardcoding and let
> it run after the real fix is applied?
> The performance of drop_caches doesn't seem critical, especially with
> gigapages. tmpfs doesn't seem to be optimized away from drop_caches
> and the gain would be bigger for tmpfs if THP is not enabled in the
> mount, so I'm not sure if we should worry about hugetlbfs first.

I guess so. I can't immediately see a clean way of expressing this so
perhaps it would need a new BDI_CAP_NO_BACKING_STORE. Such a
thing hardly seems worthwhile for drop_caches.

And drop_caches really shouldn't be there anyway. It's a standing
workaround for ongoing suckage in pagecache and metadata reclaim
behaviour :(

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-19 03:48    [W:0.073 / U:3.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site