[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 10/18/18 6:47 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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?

Yeah. The other part of the patch is the real fix. This drop_caches
part is not necessary.

>> 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 :(

I'm OK with dropping the other part. It just seemed like there was no
real reason to try and drop_caches for hugetlbfs (and perhaps others).

Andrew, would you like another version? Or can you just drop the
fs/drop_caches.c part?

Mike Kravetz

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-19 06:51    [W:0.068 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site