[PATCH] docs: tmpfs: update the huge folios policy for tmpfs and shmem fix

Baolin Wang posted 1 patch 1 week, 2 days ago
Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
[PATCH] docs: tmpfs: update the huge folios policy for tmpfs and shmem fix
Posted by Baolin Wang 1 week, 2 days ago
Drop 'fadvise()' from the doc, since fadvise() has no HUGEPAGE advise
currently.

Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
---
 Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst
index ba6edff728ed..333958ef0d5f 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst
@@ -382,10 +382,10 @@ never
 
 within_size
     Only allocate huge page if it will be fully within i_size.
-    Also respect fadvise()/madvise() hints;
+    Also respect madvise() hints;
 
 advise
-    Only allocate huge pages if requested with fadvise()/madvise();
+    Only allocate huge pages if requested with madvise();
 
 Remember, that the kernel may use huge pages of all available sizes, and
 that no fine control as for the internal tmpfs mount is available.
@@ -438,10 +438,10 @@ never
 
 within_size
     Only allocate <size> huge page if it will be fully within i_size.
-    Also respect fadvise()/madvise() hints;
+    Also respect madvise() hints;
 
 advise
-    Only allocate <size> huge pages if requested with fadvise()/madvise();
+    Only allocate <size> huge pages if requested with madvise();
 
 Need of application restart
 ===========================
-- 
2.39.3
Re: [PATCH] docs: tmpfs: update the huge folios policy for tmpfs and shmem fix
Posted by Barry Song 2 days, 8 hours ago
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 7:57 PM Baolin Wang
<baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
> Drop 'fadvise()' from the doc, since fadvise() has no HUGEPAGE advise
> currently.
>
> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>

Reviewed-by: Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>

I couldn’t find any mention of HUGEPAGE in fadvise() either.

FADV_NORMAL
FADV_RANDOM
FADV_SEQUENTIAL
FADV_WILLNEED
FADV_DONTNEED
FADV_NOREUSE

> ---
>  Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst
> index ba6edff728ed..333958ef0d5f 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst
> @@ -382,10 +382,10 @@ never
>
>  within_size
>      Only allocate huge page if it will be fully within i_size.
> -    Also respect fadvise()/madvise() hints;
> +    Also respect madvise() hints;
>
>  advise
> -    Only allocate huge pages if requested with fadvise()/madvise();
> +    Only allocate huge pages if requested with madvise();
>
>  Remember, that the kernel may use huge pages of all available sizes, and
>  that no fine control as for the internal tmpfs mount is available.
> @@ -438,10 +438,10 @@ never
>
>  within_size
>      Only allocate <size> huge page if it will be fully within i_size.
> -    Also respect fadvise()/madvise() hints;
> +    Also respect madvise() hints;
>
>  advise
> -    Only allocate <size> huge pages if requested with fadvise()/madvise();
> +    Only allocate <size> huge pages if requested with madvise();
>
>  Need of application restart
>  ===========================
> --
> 2.39.3
>
Re: [PATCH] docs: tmpfs: update the huge folios policy for tmpfs and shmem fix
Posted by David Hildenbrand 18 hours ago
On 20.11.24 22:35, Barry Song wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 7:57 PM Baolin Wang
> <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>
>> Drop 'fadvise()' from the doc, since fadvise() has no HUGEPAGE advise
>> currently.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>
> 
> I couldn’t find any mention of HUGEPAGE in fadvise() either.
> 
> FADV_NORMAL
> FADV_RANDOM
> FADV_SEQUENTIAL
> FADV_WILLNEED
> FADV_DONTNEED
> FADV_NOREUSE

Probably it was forward-looking, and that change never happened.

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb