[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZHC6BM+ehSC5Atv8@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2023 14:54:12 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: hughd@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, brauner@...nel.org,
djwong@...nel.org, p.raghav@...sung.com, da.gomez@...sung.com,
rohan.puri@...sung.com, rpuri.linux@...il.com,
a.manzanares@...sung.com, dave@...olabs.net, yosryahmed@...gle.com,
keescook@...omium.org, hare@...e.de, kbusch@...nel.org,
patches@...ts.linux.dev, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/8] add support for blocksize > PAGE_SIZE
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 12:55:44AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> This is an initial attempt to add support for block size > PAGE_SIZE for tmpfs.
> Why would you want this? It helps us experiment with higher order folio uses
> with fs APIS and helps us test out corner cases which would likely need
> to be accounted for sooner or later if and when filesystems enable support
> for this. Better review early and burn early than continue on in the wrong
> direction so looking for early feedback.
I think this is entirely the wrong direction to go in.
You're coming at this from a block layer perspective, and we have two
ways of doing large block devices -- qemu nvme and brd. tmpfs should
be like other filesystems and opportunistically use folios of whatever
size makes sense.
Don't add a mount option to specify what size folios to use.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists