Date:	Tue, 2 Oct 2012 17:39:28 +1000
From:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
	Robert Love <rlove@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Andrea Righi <andrea@...terlinux.com>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mike Hommey <mh@...ndium.org>, Taras Glek <tglek@...illa.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Volatile Ranges (v7) & Lots of words

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 23:16:30 -0400 John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:

> 
> After Kernel Summit and Plumbers, I wanted to consider all the various
> side-discussions and try to summarize my current thoughts here along
> with sending out my current implementation for review.
> 
> Also: I'm going on four weeks of paternity leave in the very near
> (but non-deterministic) future. So while I hope I still have time
> for some discussion, I may have to deal with fussier complaints
> then yours. :)  In any case, you'll have more time to chew on
> the idea and come up with amazing suggestions. :)

Hi John,

 I wonder if you are trying to please everyone and risking pleasing no-one?
 Well, maybe not quite that extreme, but you can't please all the people all
 the time.

 For example, allowing sub-page volatile region seems to be above and beyond
 the call of duty.  You cannot mmap sub-pages, so why should they be volatile?

 Similarly the suggestion of using madvise - while tempting - is probably a
 minority interest and can probably be managed with library code.  I'm glad
 you haven't pursued it.

 I think discarding whole ranges at a time is very sensible, and so merging
 adjacent ranges is best avoided.  If you require page-aligned ranges this
 becomes trivial - is that right?

 I wonder if the oldest page/oldest range issue can be defined way by
 requiring apps the touch the first page in a range when they touch the range.
 Then the age of a range is the age of the first page.  Non-initial pages
 could even be kept off the free list .... though that might confuse NUMA
 page reclaim if a range had pages from different nodes.


 Application to non-tmpfs files seems very unclear and so probably best
 avoided.
 If I understand you correctly, then you have suggested both that a volatile
 range would be a "lazy hole punch" and a "don't let this get written to disk
 yet" flag.  It cannot really be both.  The former sounds like fallocate,
 the latter like fadvise.
 I think the later sounds more like the general purpose of volatile ranges,
 but I also suspect that some journalling filesystems might be uncomfortable
 providing a guarantee like that.  So I would suggest firmly stating that it
 is a tmpfs-only feature.  If someone wants something vaguely similar for
 other filesystems, let them implement it separately.


 The SIGBUS interface could have some merit if it really reduces overhead.  I
 worry about app bugs that could result from the non-deterministic
 behaviour.   A range could get unmapped while it is in use and testing for
 the case of "get a SIGBUS half way though accessing something" would not
 be straight forward (SIGBUS on first step of access should be easy).
 I guess that is up to the app writer, but I have never liked anything about
 the signal interface and encouraging further use doesn't feel wise.

 That's my 2c worth for now.  Keep up the good work,

NeilBrown


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists