[LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Per-process page size

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 2/17/26 16:22, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 08:20:26PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>> 2. Generic Linux MM enlightenment
>> ---------------------------------
>> We enlighten the Linux MM code to always hand out memory in the granularity
> 
> Please don't use the term "enlighten".  Tht's used to describe something
> something or other with hypervisors.  Come up with a new term or use one
> that already exists.
> 
>> File memory
>> -----------
>> For a growing list of compliant file systems, large folios can already be
>> stored in the page cache. There is even a mechanism, introduced to support
>> filesystems with block sizes larger than the system page size, to set a
>> hard-minimum size for folios on a per-address-space basis. This mechanism
>> will be reused and extended to service the per-process page size requirements.
>>
>> One key reason that the 64K kernel currently consumes considerably more memory
>> than the 4K kernel is that Linux systems often have lots of small
>> configuration files which each require a page in the page cache. But these
>> small files are (likely) only used by certain processes. So, we prefer to
>> continue to cache those using a 4K page.
>> Therefore, if a process with a larger page size maps a file whose pagecache
>> contains smaller folios, we drop them and re-read the range with a folio
>> order at least that of the process order.
> 
> That's going to be messy.  I don't have a good idea for solving this
> problem, but the page cache really isn't set up to change minimum folio
> order while the inode is in use.

In a private conversation I also raised that some situations might make 
it impossible/hard to drop+re-read.

One example I cam up with if a folio is simply long-term R/O pinned. But 
I am also not quite sure how mlock might interfere here.

So yes, I think the page cache is likely the one of the most 
problematic/messy thing to handle.

-- 
Cheers,

David