[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1400271.1706538135@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:22:15 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...nel.org>,
Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>, netfs@...ts.linux.dev,
v9fs@...ts.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] 9p: Further netfslib-related changes
Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com> wrote:
> > (1) Enable large folio support for 9p. This is handled entirely by
> > netfslib and is already supported in afs. I wonder if we should limit
> > the maximum folio size to 1MiB to match the maximum I/O size in the 9p
> > protocol.
>
> The limit depends on user's 'msize' 9p client option and on the 9p transport
> implementation. The hard limit with virtio transport for instance is currently
> just 500k (patches for virtio 4MB limit fetching dust unfortunately).
Okay. Is that 500KiB or 512Kib?
> Would you see an advantage to limit folio size? I mean p9_client_read() etc.
> are automatically limiting the read/write chunk size accordingly.
For reads not so much, but for writes it would mean that a dirty folio is
either entirely written or entirely failed. I don't know how important this
would be for the 9p usecases.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists