Re: [PATCH v1] fuse: enable large folios

On 6/24/26 9:21 AM, Joanne Koong wrote:
> Enable large folios, capping the max order at the largest request fuse
> can issue, so a folio always fits within a single request. The order
> range minimum is 0, so under memory pressure the allocator falls back to
> smaller folios.
> 
> Benchmarks (libfuse passthrough_hp, buffered fio, single job, 4 GiB
> file, medians, NUMA-pinned, performance governor, strictlimiting on by
> default):
> 
> tmpfs backing (page-cache bound):
>   workload          bs      large folios off   on        delta
>   seq read,  cold,  128k    3110 MiB/s    4514 MiB/s     +45%
>   seq read,  cold,  1M      3079 MiB/s    5181 MiB/s     +68%
>   seq read,  warm,  128k    2438 MiB/s    4486 MiB/s     +84%
>   seq read,  warm,  1M      2403 MiB/s    5123 MiB/s    +113%
>   writeback write, seq,128k 1211 MiB/s    1699 MiB/s     +40%
>   writeback write, seq, 1M  1462 MiB/s    2208 MiB/s     +51%
>   writeback write, rand,128k 1101 MiB/s   1757 MiB/s     +60% +
>   writeback write, rand, 1M 1284 MiB/s    2228 MiB/s     +74% +
> 
> xfs on NVMe backing (device bound for cold I/O):
>   workload          bs      large folios off   on        delta
>   seq read,  cold,  128k    2030 MiB/s    2172 MiB/s      +7% *
>   seq read,  cold,  1M      1999 MiB/s    2181 MiB/s      +9% *
>   seq read,  warm,  128k    2451 MiB/s    4939 MiB/s    +101%
>   seq read,  warm,  1M      2340 MiB/s    5639 MiB/s    +141%
>   writeback write, seq,128k  637 MiB/s     747 MiB/s     +17% *
>   writeback write, seq, 1M   694 MiB/s     833 MiB/s     +20% *
>   writeback write, rand,128k 1004 MiB/s   1648 MiB/s     +64% +
>   writeback write, rand, 1M 1171 MiB/s    2055 MiB/s     +75% +
> 
> (*) device-bandwidth bound. Not much throughput gain but system cpu
> utilization was roughly halved
> (+) random write was tested as an overwrite of a hot region (under
> writeback, this is page-cache bound, so the gain comes from lower
> per-folio cpu overhead rather than higher backing-device throughput)
> 
> Random reads (4k and 128k) and writethrough writes were neutral with
> no regression (no read-modify-write or read-amplification penalty from
> large folios)
> 
> More information about the benchmark setup and results are in
> https://github.com/joannekoong/linux/commits/fuse_large_folios_benchmarks/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <[email protected]>
> ---
> This has a dependency on the iomap uptodate helpers that were submitted to
> Christian's vfs tree [1]. If it's easier to route this patch through
> Christian's tree, I can resubmit this.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/[email protected]/
> 
>  fs/fuse/file.c | 10 ++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
> index cb8da4c06d17..3c9be6d8ede1 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
> @@ -3136,4 +3136,14 @@ void fuse_init_file_inode(struct inode *inode, unsigned int flags)
>  
>  	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FUSE_DAX))
>  		fuse_dax_inode_init(inode, flags);
> +
> +	if (!FUSE_IS_DAX(inode)) {
> +		unsigned int max_pages = min(min(fc->max_write,
> +						 fc->max_read) >> PAGE_SHIFT,
> +					     fc->max_pages);
> +
> +		if (max_pages)
> +			mapping_set_folio_order_range(inode->i_mapping, 0,
> +						      ilog2(max_pages));
> +	}
>  }

mapping_set_folio_order_range(..., 0, 0) seems harmless even when
max_pages is 0.

Anyway

Reviewed-by: Jingbo Xu \<[email protected]\>



-- 
Thanks,
Jingbo