On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 04:01:19PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 01:55:54PM +0000, Daniel Gomez wrote: > > Add large folio support for shmem write path matching the same high > > order preference mechanism used for iomap buffered IO path as used in > > __filemap_get_folio() with a difference on the max order permitted > > (being PMD_ORDER-1) to respect the huge mount option when large folio > > is supported. > > I'm strongly opposed to "respecting the huge mount option". We're > determining the best order to use for the folios. Artificially limiting > the size because the sysadmin read an article from 2005 that said to > use this option is STUPID. Then, I would still have the conflict on what to do when the order is same as huge. I guess huge does not make sense in this new scenario? unless we add large folios controls as proposal in linux-MM meeting notes . But I'm missing a bit of context so it's not clear to me what to do next.  https://lore.kernel.org/all/4966f496-9f71-460c-b2ab-8661384ce626@xxxxxxx/T/#u In that sense, I wanted to have a big picture of what was this new strategy implying in terms of folio order when adding to page cache, so I added tracing for it (same as in readahead). With bpftrace I can see the following (notes added to explain each field) after running fsx up to 119M: @c: 363049108 /* total folio order being traced */ @order: 2 /* order 8 being used 2 times (add_to_page_cache) */ @order: 3249587 */ order 5 being used 3249587 times (add_to_page_cache) */ @order: 5972205 @order: 8890418 @order: 10380055 @order: 334556841 @order_2: /* linear histogram of folio order */ [0, 1) 334556841 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@| [1, 2) 0 | | [2, 3) 10380055 |@ | [3, 4) 8890418 |@ | [4, 5) 5972205 | | [5, 6) 3249587 | | [6, 7) 0 | | [7, 8) 0 | | [8, 9) 2 | | I guess that's not te best workload to see this but would tracing be also interesting to add to the series? > > > else > > - folio = shmem_alloc_folio(gfp, info, index, *order); > > + folio = shmem_alloc_folio(gfp, info, index, order); > > Why did you introduce it as *order, only to change it back to order > in this patch? It feels like you just fixed up patch 6 rather than > percolating the changes all the way back to where they should have > been done. This makes the reviewer's life hard. > Sorry about that. I missed it in my changes.