Re: [PATCH 00/24] huge tmpfs: an alternative approach to THPageCache

From: Kirill A. Shutemov
Date: Mon Feb 23 2015 - 08:48:37 EST

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 07:49:16PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> I warned last month that I have been working on "huge tmpfs":
> an implementation of Transparent Huge Page Cache in tmpfs,
> for those who are tired of the limitations of hugetlbfs.
> Here's a fully working patchset, against v3.19 so that you can give it
> a try against a stable base. I've not yet studied how well it applies
> to current git: probably lots of easily resolved clashes with nonlinear
> removal. Against mmotm, the rmap.c differences looked nontrivial.
> Fully working? Well, at present page migration just keeps away from
> these teams of pages. And once memory pressure has disbanded a team
> to swap it out, there is nothing to put it together again later on,
> to restore the original hugepage performance. Those must follow,
> but no thought yet (khugepaged? maybe).
> Yes, I realize there's nothing yet under Documentation, nor fs/proc
> beyond meminfo, nor other debug/visibility files: must follow, but
> I've cared more to provide the basic functionality.
> I don't expect to update this patchset in the next few weeks: now that
> it's posted, my priority is look at other people's work before LSF/MM;
> and in particular, of course, your (Kirill's) THP refcounting redesign.

I scanned through the patches to get general idea on how it works. I'm not
sure that I will have time and will power to do proper code-digging before
the summit. I found few bugs in my patchset which I want to troubleshoot

One thing I'm not really comfortable with is introducing yet another way
to couple pages together. It's less risky in short term than my approach
-- fewer existing codepaths affected, but it rises maintaining cost later.
Not sure it's what we want.

After Johannes' work which added exceptional entries to normal page cache
I hoped to see shmem/tmpfs implementation moving toward generic page
cache. But this patchset is step in other direction -- it makes
shmem/tmpfs even more special-cased. :(

Do you have any insights on how this approach applies to real filesystems?
I don't think there's any show stopper, but better to ask early ;)

Kirill A. Shutemov
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at