On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 17:07:47 -0700 (PDT), Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:28:59 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Radosław Smogura <mail@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > This is may first try with Linux patch, so please do not blame
me too
> > much.
> > Actually I started with small idea to add MAP_HUGTLB for
/dev/shm but it
> > grew
> > up in something more like support for huge pages in page cache,
but
> > according
> > to documentation to submit alpha-work too, I decided to send
this.
>
> Shouldn't this be rather integrated with the normal transparent
huge
> pages? It seems odd to develop parallel infrastructure.
>
> -Andi
Although Andi's sig says "Speaking for myself only",
he is very much speaking for me on this too ;)
There is definitely interest in extending Transparent Huge Pages to
tmpfs;
though so far as I know, nobody has yet had time to think through
just
what that will entail.
Correspondingly, I'm afraid there would be little interest in adding
yet
another variant of hugepages into the kernel - enough ugliness
already!
It's not quite good to ask me about this, as I'm starting hacker,
but I
think it should be treated as counterpart for page cache, and
actually I got
few "collisions" with THP.
High level design will probably be the same (e.g. I use defrag_, THP
uses
collapse_ for creating huge page), but in contrast I try to operate
on page
cache, so in some way file system must be huge page aware (shm fs is
not, as
it can move page from page cache to swap cache - it may silently
fragment
de-fragmented areas).
I put some requirements for work, e. g. mapping file as huge should
not
affect previous or future, even fancy, non huge mappings, both
callers
should succeed and get this what they asked for.
Of course I think how to make it more "transparent" without need of
file
system support, but I suppose it may be dead-corner.
I still want to emphasise it's really alpha version.
I barely looked at it, but did notice that scripts/checkpatch.pl
reports
127 errors and 111 warnings, plus it seems to be significantly
incomplete
(an extern declaration of defragPageCache() but not the function
itself).
And it serves no purpose without the pte work you mention (there
is no point to a shmem hugepage unless it is mapped in that way).
Sorry to be discouraging, but extending THP is likely to be the way
to go.
Hugh
Hi,
I working to remove errors from patch, and I integrated it with current
THP infrastructure a little bit, but I want ask if following I do
following - it's about get_page, put_page, get_page_unless_zero,
put_page_test_zero.
I want following logic I think it may be better (in x86):
1) Each THP page will start with 512 refcount (self + 511 tails)
2) Each get/put will increment usage count only on this page, same test
variants will do (currently those do not make this, so split is broken)
3) On compounds put page will call put_page_test_zero, if true, it will
do compound lock, ask again if it has 0, if yes it will decrease
refcount of head, if it will fall to zero compound will be freed (double
check lock).
4) Compound lock is this what caller will need to establish if it needs
to operate on transparent huge page in whole.
Motivation:
I operate on page cache, many assumptions about concurrent call of
put/get_page are and plain using those causes memory leaks, faults,
dangling pointers, etc when I'm going to split compound page.
Is this acceptable?
Regards,
Radek
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>