From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A59D02F23 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 19:49:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720122584; cv=none; b=W8O90BWMHkQ4s2a57vnFPB4zUnvb8VNKsagqpaK/PgkGVAl1iTDIGTckBtWmMzZLsNOPW9HFZE1yl2O+r8hMv1TvHDg3ORJYTUnjIPKnNovGh6a2ozPsKyTAlwxIDP8jVoWcL6PQHtPhLdY0jGiJHfE4CFIl0d7QYMtetMhfN/U= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720122584; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TfZ3p2zXd8EXIbQZvdGO7Oo1USEJV8UkjxxxDNE5Ap4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=sfVXJUPH4J4hIHXxpYLIAb13ysvZt5oiNMx+WT/byaAVdgJoy1QYTclxbCw30TX3sgOEXctjQ6Gk2YWacIC47G8O/ryBa/I1cmMrFPOl/XL0l/W7cG6rpm+Ks3z2bn11/FKqEtstBRAEtzZacm15iblis70oRb86YDmX2Di450c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=lWTNjUV3; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="lWTNjUV3" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=23UN5iauPHTCS5OpRoEco7H8tb49lnIlqtiELf2idnY=; b=lWTNjUV3Z8NyX6a9ceffRK9Y9v TRk1lXW7peMuQNdleWNiDRxHDAcjfsSpv0y+Ukp/xNECrgRKsN+igzgubfSZW1bvmhG07ntg+f9KP QjU6JoW++IckVHh86fmXy4xuLIp8TmCh/6QKh7hepr4t19QkcJ0TDEVzSYndNohVSNgXs5bJbuxp8 czrrfptXFMDrKkP8smQkhCCN8wWWMTrZiE6d01R8ViijzdrTzQvtpVQAVROcMlH/C9UqAU1c+LBSd cJwKq17A0pnom7t8K0cdacBg0hOaqBArDJj0MuMQIaNXmWFSlKsJ1YDc+vfazzY9DQi1cP6CNzKqS 6DgH0QHw==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1sPSSK-00000003Cat-45m7; Thu, 04 Jul 2024 19:49:25 +0000 Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 20:49:24 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Baolin Wang , akpm@linux-foundation.org, hughd@google.com, wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, ying.huang@intel.com, 21cnbao@gmail.com, ryan.roberts@arm.com, shy828301@gmail.com, ziy@nvidia.com, ioworker0@gmail.com, da.gomez@samsung.com, p.raghav@samsung.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] add mTHP support for anonymous shmem Message-ID: References: <27beaa0e-697e-4e30-9ac6-5de22228aec1@redhat.com> <6d4c0191-18a9-4c8f-8814-d4775557383e@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6d4c0191-18a9-4c8f-8814-d4775557383e@redhat.com> On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 09:19:10PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 04.07.24 21:03, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > shmem has two uses: > > > > > > - MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_SHARED (this patch set) > > > - tmpfs > > > > > > For the second use case we don't want controls *at all*, we want the > > > same heiristics used for all other filesystems to apply to tmpfs. > > > > As discussed in the MM meeting, Hugh had a different opinion on that. > > FWIW, I just recalled that I wrote a quick summary: > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/f1783ff0-65bd-4b2b-8952-52b6822a0835@redhat.com > > I believe the meetings are recorded as well, but never looked at recordings. That's not what I understood Hugh to mean. To me, it seemed that Hugh was expressing an opinion on using shmem as shmem, not as using it as tmpfs. If I misunderstood Hugh, well, I still disagree. We should not have separate controls for this. tmpfs is just not that special.