[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <97774073-1df0-328a-68f8-f59667bce168@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 07:24:14 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Fan Du <fan.du@...el.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@....de,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add /proc/PID/{smaps, numa_maps} support for DAX
On 10/26/2017 07:16 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> The original motivation was for DAX. They have parallel large page
>> infrastructure separate from hugetlbfs and THP. Their constraints about
>> when they can use large pages differ from the normal mm cases, so it is
>> hard to tell when large pages are in use. For instance, the file on
>> *disk* has to be 2MB contiguous and aligned to map with 2MB pages even
>> if the mmap() address is >2MB and 2MB-aligned.
>
> I assume there is some tool which is going to use this information?
Actually, I don't remember whether it was tooling or just confused
humans. I *think* Dan was trying to write test cases for huge page DAX
support and couldn't figure out whether or not it was using large pages.
>> But, in general, this seems like the thing that we probably should have
>> done in the first place for THP. It's a lot more generic and does not
>> require someone reading the file to know what the particular
>> architecture's page sizes are.
>
> I fully agree. This just shows how single usecase focus driven smaps
> file was. That is why I am asking about usecases when somebody want to
> try yet another special field there. Smaps has become a dump of of
> special cases which is not really easy to understand and so people tend
> to use it incorrectly.
We just have to be careful not to cram use-cases into the existing
fields which might make them meaningless. I fear that Fan Du's latest
patches do that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists