[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YW+KwgzaIj+hG8d7@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 04:19:30 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Folios for 5.15 request - Was: re: Folio discussion recap -
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 11:16:18AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> My only effort from the start has been working out unanswered
> questions in this proposal: Are compound pages the reliable, scalable,
> and memory-efficient way to do bigger page sizes? What's the scope of
> remaining tailpages where typesafety will continue to lack? How do we
> implement code and properties shared by folios and non-folio types
> (like mmap/fault code for folio and network and driver pages)?
I don't think those questions need to be answered before proceeding
with this patchset. They're interesting questions, to be sure, but
to a large extent they're orthogonal to the changes here. I look
forward to continuing to work on those problems while filesystems
and the VFS continue to be converted to use folios.
> I'm not really sure how to exit this. The reasons for my NAK are still
> there. But I will no longer argue or stand in the way of the patches.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists