linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] Split a folio to any lower order folios

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:31:00 -0500
From: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: "\"Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)\"" <kernel@...kajraghav.com>,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, "\"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)\"" <willy@...radead.org>,
 Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
 "\"Kirill A . Shutemov\"" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
 Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
 "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@...e.com>,
 Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
 "\"Zach O'Keefe\"" <zokeefe@...gle.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
 Mcgrof Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] Split a folio to any lower order folios

On 13 Feb 2024, at 17:21, David Hildenbrand wrote:

> On 13.02.24 22:55, Zi Yan wrote:
>> From: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> File folio supports any order and multi-size THP is upstreamed[1], so both
>> file and anonymous folios can be >0 order. Currently, split_huge_page()
>> only splits a huge page to order-0 pages, but splitting to orders higher than
>> 0 is going to better utilize large folios. In addition, Large Block
>> Sizes in XFS support would benefit from it[2]. This patchset adds support for
>> splitting a large folio to any lower order folios and uses it during file
>> folio truncate operations.
>>
>> For Patch 6, Hugh did not like my approach to minimize the number of
>> folios for truncate[3]. I would like to get more feedback, especially
>> from FS people, on it to decide whether to keep it or not.
>
> I'm curious, would it make sense to exclude the "more" controversial parts (i.e., patch #6) for now, and focus on the XFS use case only?

Sure. Patch 6 was there to make use of split_huge_page_to_list_to_order().
Now we have multi-size THP and XFS use cases, it can be dropped.

--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (855 bytes)