lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] Two folio fixes for 5.18
On Tue, 10 May 2022 23:30:02 +0100 Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 03:18:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 May 2022 00:43:18 +0100 Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > > - Fix readahead creating single-page folios instead of the intended
> > > large folios when doing reads that are not a power of two in size.
> >
> > I worry about the idea of using hugepages in readahead. We're
> > increasing the load on the hugepage allocator, which is already
> > groaning under the load.
>
> Well, hang on. We're not using the hugepage allocator, we're using
> the page allocator. We're also using variable order pages, not
> necessarily PMD_ORDER.

Ah, OK, misapprehended. I guess there remains a fragmentation risk.

> I was under the impression that we were
> using GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT, but I now don't see that. So that might
> be something that needs to be changed.
>
> > The obvious risk is that handing out hugepages to a low-value consumer
> > (copying around pagecache which is only ever accessed via the direct
> > map) will deny their availability to high-value consumers (that
> > compute-intensive task against a large dataset).
> >
> > Has testing and instrumentation been used to demonstrate that this is
> > not actually going to be a problem, or are we at risk of getting
> > unhappy reports?
>
> It's hard to demonstrate that it's definitely not going to cause a
> problem. But I actually believe it will help; by keeping page cache
> memory in larger chunks, we make it easier to defrag memory and create
> PMD-order pages when they're needed.

Obviously it'll be very workload-dependent.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-05-11 00:46    [W:0.236 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site