Quoting Hugh Dickins (2019-08-08 16:54:16)
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 08:30:02AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 12:50:10AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > > Though personally I'm averse to managing "f"objects through
> > > > "m"interfaces, which can get ridiculous (notably, MADV_HUGEPAGE works
> > > > on the virtual address of a mapping, but the huge-or-not alignment of
> > > > that mapping must have been decided previously). In Google we do use
> > > > fcntls F_HUGEPAGE and F_NOHUGEPAGE to override on a per-file basis -
> > > > one day I'll get to upstreaming those.
> > >
> > > Such an interface seems very useful, although the two fcntls seem a bit
> > > odd.
> > >
> > > But I think the point here is that the i915 has its own somewhat odd
> > > instance of tmpfs. If we could pass the equivalent of the huge=*
> > > options to shmem_file_setup all that garbage (including the
> > > shmem_file_setup_with_mnt function) could go away.
> >
> > ... or follow shmem_file_super() with whatever that fcntl maps to
> > internally. I would really love to get rid of that i915 kludge.
>
> As to the immediate problem of i915_gemfs using remount_fs on linux-next,
> IIUC, all that is necessary at the moment is the deletions patch below
> (but I'd prefer that to come from the i915 folks). Since gemfs has no
> need to change the huge option from its default to its default.
>
> As to the future of when they get back to wanting huge pages in gemfs,
> yes, that can probably best be arranged by using the internals of an
> fcntl F_HUGEPAGE on those objects that would benefit from it.
>
> Though my intention there was that the "huge=never" default ought
> to continue to refuse to give huge pages, even when asked by fcntl.
> So a little hackery may still be required, to allow the i915_gemfs
> internal mount to get huge pages when a user mount would not.
>
> As to whether shmem_file_setup_with_mnt() needs to live: I've given
> that no thought, but accept that shm_mnt is such a ragbag of different
> usages, that i915 is right to prefer their own separate gemfs mount.
>
> Hugh
>
> --- mmotm/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gemfs.c 2019-07-21 19:40:16.573703780 -0700
> +++ linux/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gemfs.c 2019-08-08 07:19:23.967689058 -0700
> @@ -24,28 +24,6 @@ int i915_gemfs_init(struct drm_i915_priv
> if (IS_ERR(gemfs))
> return PTR_ERR(gemfs);
>
> - /*
> - * Enable huge-pages for objects that are at least HPAGE_PMD_SIZE, most
> - * likely 2M. Note that within_size may overallocate huge-pages, if say
> - * we allocate an object of size 2M + 4K, we may get 2M + 2M, but under
> - * memory pressure shmem should split any huge-pages which can be
> - * shrunk.
> - */
> -
> - if (has_transparent_hugepage()) {
> - struct super_block *sb = gemfs->mnt_sb;
> - /* FIXME: Disabled until we get W/A for read BW issue. */
> - char options[] = "huge=never";
> - int flags = 0;
> - int err;
> -
> - err = sb->s_op->remount_fs(sb, &flags, options);
> - if (err) {
> - kern_unmount(gemfs);
> - return err;
> - }
> - }
That's perfectly fine; we should probably leave a hint as to why gemfs
exists and include the suggestion of looking at per-file hugepage
controls.
Matthew, how does this affect your current plans? If at all?
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
