lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 1/2] mm: Allow the page cache to allocate large pages
On Tue 03-09-19 09:28:31, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 02:19:52PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 03-09-19 05:11:55, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 01:57:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Mon 02-09-19 03:23:40, William Kucharski wrote:
> > > > > Add an 'order' argument to __page_cache_alloc() and
> > > > > do_read_cache_page(). Ensure the allocated pages are compound pages.
> > > >
> > > > Why do we need to touch all the existing callers and change them to use
> > > > order 0 when none is actually converted to a different order? This just
> > > > seem to add a lot of code churn without a good reason. If anything I
> > > > would simply add __page_cache_alloc_order and make __page_cache_alloc
> > > > call it with order 0 argument.
> > >
> > > Patch 2/2 uses a non-zero order.
> >
> > It is a new caller and it can use a new function right?
> >
> > > I agree it's a lot of churn without
> > > good reason; that's why I tried to add GFP_ORDER flags a few months ago.
> > > Unfortunately, you didn't like that approach either.
> >
> > Is there any future plan that all/most __page_cache_alloc will get a
> > non-zero order argument?
>
> I'm not sure about "most". It will certainly become more common, as
> far as I can tell.

I would personally still go with __page_cache_alloc_order way, but this
is up to you and other fs people what suits best. I was just surprised
to see a lot of code churn when it was not really used in the second
patch. That's why I brought it up.

> > > > Also is it so much to ask callers to provide __GFP_COMP explicitly?
> > >
> > > Yes, it's an unreasonable burden on the callers.
> >
> > Care to exaplain why? __GFP_COMP tends to be used in the kernel quite
> > extensively.
>
> Most of the places which call this function get their gfp_t from
> mapping->gfp_mask. If we only want to allocate a single page, we
> must not set __GFP_COMP. If we want to allocate a large page, we must
> set __GFP_COMP. Rather than require individual filesystems to concern
> themselves with this wart of the GFP interface, we can solve it in the
> page cache.

Fair enough.

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-03 21:18    [W:0.061 / U:9.844 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site