linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/filemap: allocate folios according to the blocksize

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:28:36 +0200
From:   Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
To:     Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
CC:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <mcgrof@...nel.org>, SSDR Gost Dev <gost.dev@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/filemap: allocate folios according to the blocksize

On 2023-04-20 14:19, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>
>> **Questions on the future work**:
>>
>> As willy pointed out, we have to do this `order = mapping->host->i_blkbits - PAGE_SHIFT` in
>> many places. Should we pursue something that willy suggested: encapsulating order in the
>> mapping->flags as a next step?[1]
>>
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZDty+PQfHkrGBojn@casper.infradead.org/
> 
> Well ... really, not sure.
> Yes, continue updating buffer_heads would be a logical thing as it could be done incrementally.
>
> But really, the end-goal should be to move away from buffer_heads for fs and mm usage. So I wonder
> if we shouldn't rather look in that direction..
>
Yeah, I understand that part. Hopefully, this will be discussed as a part of LSFMM.

But the changes that are done in filemap and readahead needs to be done anyway irrespective of the
underlying aops right? Or Am I missing something.

> Cheers,
> 
> Hannes
>