On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 12:17:00PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:

On 9/9/21 06:56, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

quoted

On 9/9/21 14:43, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

quoted

So what is the result here?  Not having folios (with that or another
name) is really going to set back making progress on sane support for
huge pages.  Both in the pagecache but also for other places like direct
I/O.

Yeah, the silence doesn't seem actionable. If naming is the issue, I believe
Matthew had also a branch where it was renamed to pageset. If it's the
unclear future evolution wrt supporting subpages of large pages, should we
just do nothing until somebody turns that hypothetical future into code and
we see whether it works or not?

When I saw Matthew's proposal to rename folio --> pageset, my reaction was,
"OK, this is a huge win!". Because:

* The new name addressed Linus' concerns about naming, which unblocks it
  there, and

* The new name seems to meet all of the criteria of the "folio" name,
  including even grep-ability, after a couple of tiny page_set and pageset
  cases are renamed--AND it also meets Linus' criteria for self-describing
  names.

So I didn't want to add noise to that thread, but now that there is still
some doubt about this, I'll pop up and suggest: do the huge
's/folio/pageset/g', and of course the associated renaming of the conflicting
existing pageset and page_set cases, and then maybe it goes in.

So I've done that.

https://git.infradead.org/users/willy/pagecache.git/shortlog/refs/tags/pageset-5.15

I sent it to Linus almost two weeks ago:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/YSmtjVTqR9%2F4W1aq@casper.infradead.org/ (local)

Still nothing, so I presume he's still thinking about it.