On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 01:23:41PM -0700, Ira wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 08:38:52PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 01:29:35PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 07:08:22PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > Some of you will already know all this, but I'll go into a certain amount
> > > > of detail for the peanut gallery.
> > > >
> > > > One of the problems that people want to solve with multi-page folios
> > > > is supporting filesystem block sizes > PAGE_SIZE. Such filesystems
> > > > already exist; you can happily create a 64kB block size filesystem on
> > > > a PPC/ARM/... today, then fail to mount it on an x86 machine.
> > > >
> > > > kmap_local_folio() only lets you map a single page from a folio.
> > > > This works for the majority of cases (eg ->write_begin() works on a
> > > > per-page basis *anyway*, so we can just map a single page from the folio).
> > > > But this is somewhat hampering for ext2_get_page(), used for directory
> > > > handling. A directory record may cross a page boundary (because it
> > > > wasn't a page boundary on the machine which created the filesystem),
> > > > and juggling two pages being mapped at once is tricky with the stack
> > > > model for kmap_local.
> > > >
> > > > I don't particularly want to invest heavily in optimising for HIGHMEM.
> > > > The number of machines which will use multi-page folios and HIGHMEM is
> > > > not going to be large, one hopes, as 64-bit kernels are far more common.
> > > > I'm happy for 32-bit to be slow, as long as it works.
> > > >
> > > > For these reasons, I proposing the logical equivalent to this:
> > > >
> > > > +void *folio_map_local(struct folio *folio)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HIGHMEM))
> > > > + return folio_address(folio);
> > > > + if (!folio_test_large(folio))
> > > > + return kmap_local_page(&folio->page);
> > > > + return vmap_folio(folio);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void folio_unmap_local(const void *addr)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HIGHMEM))
> > > > + return;
> > > > + if (is_vmalloc_addr(addr))
> > > > + vunmap(addr);
> > > > + else
> > > > + kunmap_local(addr);
> > > > +}
> > > >
> > > > (where vmap_folio() is a new function that works a lot like vmap(),
> > > > chunks of this get moved out-of-line, etc, etc., but this concept)
> > >
> > > So it aims at replacing kmap_local_page(), but for folios, right?
> > > kmap_local_page() interface can be used from any context, but vmap helpers
> > > might_sleep(). How do we rectify this?
> >
> > I'm not proposing getting rid of kmap_local_folio(). That should still
> > exist and work for users who need to use it in atomic context. Indeed,
> > I'm intending to put a note in the doc for folio_map_local() suggesting
> > that users may prefer to use kmap_local_folio(). Good idea to put a
> > might_sleep() in folio_map_local() though.
>
> There is also a semantic miss-match WRT the unmapping order. But I think
> Kirill brings up a bigger issue.
>
> How many folios do you think will need to be mapped at a time? And is there
> any practical limit on their size? Are 64k blocks a reasonable upper bound
> until highmem can be deprecated completely?
>
> I say this because I'm not sure that mapping a 64k block would always fail.
> These mappings are transitory. How often will a filesystem be mapping more
> than 2 folios at once?
I did the math wrong but I think my idea can still work.
>
> In our conversions most of the time 2 pages are mapped at once,
> source/destination.
>
> That said, to help ensure that a full folio map never fails we could increase
> the number of pages supported by kmap_local_page(). At first, I was not a fan
> but that would only be a penalty for HIGHMEM systems. And as we are not
> optimizing for such systems I'm not sure I see a downside to increasing the
> limit to 32 or even 64. I'm also inclined to believe that HIGHMEM systems are
> smaller core counts. So I don't think this is likely to multiply the space
> wasted much.
>
> Would doubling the support within kmap_local_page() be enough?
>
> A final idea would be to hide the increase behind a 'support large block size
> filesystems' config option under HIGHMEM systems. But I'm really not sure that
> is even needed.
>
> Ira
>
