From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932622AbcKGQD1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:03:27 -0500 Received: from mga07.intel.com ([134.134.136.100]:31990 "EHLO mga07.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932380AbcKGQDY (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:03:24 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,606,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="188599741" Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 19:03:17 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Jan Kara , "Theodore Ts'o" , Andreas Dilger , Jan Kara , Andrew Morton , Alexander Viro , Hugh Dickins , Andrea Arcangeli , Dave Hansen , Vlastimil Babka , Matthew Wilcox , Ross Zwisler , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 15/41] filemap: handle huge pages in do_generic_file_read() Message-ID: <20161107160317.jwdbqopivo7g2j2i@black.fi.intel.com> References: <20160915115523.29737-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20160915115523.29737-16-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20161013093313.GB26241@quack2.suse.cz> <20161031181035.GA7007@node.shutemov.name> <20161101163940.GA5459@quack2.suse.cz> <20161102143612.GA4790@infradead.org> <20161107111305.GB13280@node.shutemov.name> <20161107150103.GA17451@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161107150103.GA17451@infradead.org> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20160916 (1.7.0) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 07:01:03AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 02:13:05PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > It looks like a huge limitation to me. > > The DAX PMD fault code can live just fine with it. There's no way out for DAX as we map backing storage directly into userspace. There's no such limitation for page-cache. And I don't see a point to introduce such limitation artificially. Backing storage fragmentation can be a weight on decision whether we want to allocate huge page, but it shouldn't be show-stopper. > And without it performance would suck anyway. It depends on workload, obviously. -- Kirill A. Shutemov