On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:55:25AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:46:21AM +0200, Octavian Purdila wrote: >> > Naive implementation for non-mmu architectures: allocate physically >> > contiguous xfs buffers with alloc_pages. Terribly inefficient with >> > memory and fragmentation on high I/O loads but it may be good enough >> > for basic usage (which most non-mmu architectures will need). >> > >> > This patch was tested with lklfuse [1] and basic operations seems to >> > work even with 16MB allocated for LKL. >> > >> > [1] https://github.com/lkl/linux >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@xxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> >> Interesting, though this makes me wonder why we couldn't have a new >> _XBF_VMEM (for example) buffer type that uses vmalloc(). I'm not >> familiar with mmu-less context, but I see that mm/nommu.c has a >> __vmalloc() interface that looks like it ultimately translates into an >> alloc_pages() call. Would that accomplish what this patch is currently >> trying to do? > > vmalloc is always a last resort. vmalloc space on 32 bit systems is > extremely limited and it is easy to exhaust with XFS. Doesn't vm_map_ram use the same space as vmalloc? > > Also, vmalloc limits the control we have over allocation context > (e.g. the hoops we jump through in kmem_alloc_large() to maintain > GFP_NOFS contexts), so just using vmalloc doesn't make things much > simpler from an XFS perspective. > I have zero experience with XFS, sorry if I ask obvious questions. AFAICS there are no memalloc_noio_save() hoops in the page allocation part, just in the vm_map_ram part. Could we preserve the memalloc_noio_save() part and use vmalloc instead of vm_map_ram? >> I ask because it seems like that would help clean up the code a bit, for >> one. It might also facilitate some degree of testing of the XFS bits >> (even if utilized sparingly in DEBUG mode if it weren't suitable enough >> for generic/mmu use). We currently allocate and map the buffer pages >> separately and I'm not sure if there's any particular reasons for doing >> that outside of some congestion handling in the allocation code and >> XBF_UNMAPPED buffers, the latter probably being irrelevant for nommu. >> Any other thoughts on that? > > We could probably clean the code up more (the allocation logic > is now largely a historic relic) but I'm not convinced yet that we > should be spending any time trying to specifically support mmu-less > hardware. > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
