Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 5/31/24 11:04, Byungchul Park wrote:
> ...
> > I don't believe you do not agree with the concept itself. Thing is
> > the current version is not good enough. I will do my best by doing
> > what I can do.
>
> More performance is good. I agree with that.
>
> But it has to be weighed against the risk and the complexity. The more
> I look at this approach, the more I think this is not a good trade off.
> There's a lot of risk and a lot of complexity and we haven't seen the
All the complexity comes from the fact that I can't use a new space in
struct page - that can make the design even lockless.
I agree that keeping things simple is the best but I don't think all the
existing fields in struct page are the result of trying to make things
simple that you love. Some of them are more complicated.
I'd like to find a better way together instead of yelling "it's unworthy
cuz it's too complicated and there's too little space in mm world to
accommodate new things".
However, for the issues already discussed, I will think about it more
before the next spin.
Byungchul
> full complexity picture. The gaps are being fixed by adding complexity
> in new subsystems (the VFS in this case).
>
> There are going to be winners and losers, and this version for example
> makes file writes lose performance.
>
> Just to be crystal clear: I disagree with the concept of leaving stale
> TLB entries in place in an attempt to gain performance.
>
