[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yq1fwnc5pzu.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:36:53 -0400
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Robert Jennings <rcj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Staging: zram: allow partial page operations
>>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> writes:
Jeff> I don't think there's any reason the logical block size can't be
Jeff> increased. For zram, so long as you don't care that the minimum
Jeff> I/O size is 64k on these systems (and by you, I mean the users of
Jeff> zram, like file systems, or anything using the block device
Jeff> directly), then it's a fine trade-off to make.
Jeff> Jens, Martin, what do you guys think about bumping the size of the
Jeff> queue_limits.logical_block_size?
When I wrote the code I thought 64K ought to be enough for anybody.
I don't have a problem bumping it as long as people are aware of the
implications bigger blocks have on the filesystems they put on top.
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists