[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ccb7e48b-b9ad-30bb-47df-14cc8298ef8e@google.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 22:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@...el.com>,
Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/16] huge tmpfs: shmem_is_huge(vma, inode, index)
On Sat, 31 Jul 2021, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021, Yang Shi wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 12:42 AM Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Extend shmem_huge_enabled(vma) to shmem_is_huge(vma, inode, index), so
> > > that a consistent set of checks can be applied, even when the inode is
> > > accessed through read/write syscalls (with NULL vma) instead of mmaps
> > > (the index argument is seldom of interest, but required by mount option
> > > "huge=within_size"). Clean up and rearrange the checks a little.
> > >
> > > This then replaces the checks which shmem_fault() and shmem_getpage_gfp()
> > > were making, and eliminates the SGP_HUGE and SGP_NOHUGE modes: while it's
> > > still true that khugepaged's collapse_file() at that point wants a small
> > > page, the race that might allocate it a huge page is too unlikely to be
> > > worth optimizing against (we are there *because* there was at least one
> > > small page in the way), and handled by a later PageTransCompound check.
> >
> > Yes, it seems too unlikely. But if it happens the PageTransCompound
> > check may be not good enough since the page allocated by
> > shmem_getpage() may be charged to wrong memcg (root memcg). And it
> > won't be replaced by a newly allocated huge page so the wrong charge
> > can't be undone.
>
> Good point on the memcg charge: I hadn't thought of that. Of course
> it's not specific to SGP_CACHE versus SGP_NOHUGE (this patch), but I
> admit that a huge mischarge is hugely worse than a small mischarge.
Stupid me (and maybe I haven't given this enough consideration yet):
but, much better than SGP_NOHUGE, much better than SGP_CACHE, would be
SGP_READ there, wouldn't it? Needs to beware of the NULL too, of course.
Hugh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists