On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 04:25:38PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 24.11.23 16:13, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 09:56:37AM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote: > > > On 23/11/2023 15:59, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 04:29:40PM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote: > > > > > This is v7 of a series to implement small-sized THP for anonymous memory > > > > > (previously called "large anonymous folios"). The objective of this is to > > > > > > > > I'm still against small-sized THP. We've now got people asking whether > > > > the THP counters should be updated when dealing with large folios that > > > > are smaller than PMD sized. It's sowing confusion, and we should go > > > > back to large anon folios as a name. > > > > > > I suspect I'm labouring the point here, but I'd like to drill into exactly what > > > you are objecting to. Is it: > > > > > > A) Using the name "small-sized THP" (which is currently only used in the commit > > > logs and a couple of times in the documentation). > > > > Yes, this is what I'm objecting to. > > I'll just repeat that "large anon folio" is misleading, because > * we already have "large anon folios" in hugetlb We do? Where? > * we already have PMD-sized "large anon folios" in THP Right, those are already accounted as THP, and that's what users expect. If we're allocating 1024 x 64kB chunks of memory, the user won't be able to distinguish that from 32 x 2MB chunks of memory, and yet the performance profile for some applications will be very different. > But inn the end, I don't care how we will call this in a commit message. > > Just sticking to what we have right now makes most sense to me. > > I know, as the creator of the term "folio" you have to object :P Sorry ;) I don't care if it's called something to do with folios or not. I am objecting to the use of the term "small THP" on the grounds of confusion and linguistic nonsense.
