On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 7:37 PM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.bt...@gmx.com> wrote: > > > > 在 2025/7/21 19:55, Jan Kara 写道: > > On Mon 21-07-25 11:14:02, Gao Xiang wrote: > >> Hi Barry, > >> > >> On 2025/7/21 09:02, Barry Song wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 8:28 AM Gao Xiang <hsiang...@linux.alibaba.com> > >>> wrote: > [...] > >>> Given the difficulty of allocating large folios, it's always a good > >>> idea to have order-0 as a fallback. While I agree with your point, > >>> I have a slightly different perspective — enabling large folios for > >>> those devices might be beneficial, but the maximum order should > >>> remain small. I'm referring to "small" large folios. > >> > >> Yeah, agreed. Having a way to limit the maximum order for those small > >> devices (rather than disabling it completely) would be helpful. At > >> least "small" large folios could still provide benefits when memory > >> pressure is light. > > > > Well, in the page cache you can tune not only the minimum but also the > > maximum order of a folio being allocated for each inode. Btrfs and ext4 > > already use this functionality. So in principle the functionality is there, > > it is "just" a question of proper user interfaces or automatic logic to > > tune this limit. > > > > Honza > > And enabling large folios doesn't mean all fs operations will grab an > unnecessarily large folio. > > For buffered write, all those filesystem will only try to get folios as > large as necessary, not overly large. > > This means if the user space program is always doing buffered IO in a > power-of-two unit (and aligned offset of course), the folio size will > match the buffer size perfectly (if we have enough memory). > > So for properly aligned buffered writes, large folios won't really cause > unnecessarily large folios, meanwhile brings all the benefits.
I don't think this captures the full picture. For example, in memory reclamation, if any single subpage is hot, the entire large folio is treated as hot and cannot be reclaimed. So I’m not convinced that "filesystems will only try to get folios as large as necessary" is the right policy. Large folios are a good idea, but the lack of control over their maximum size limits their practical applicability. When an embedded device enables large folios and only observes performance regressions, the immediate reaction is often to disable the feature entirely. This, in turn, harms the adoption and development of large folios. > > Although I'm not familiar enough with filemap to comment on folio read > and readahead... > > Thanks, > Qu Best Regards Barry _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
