linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 01/14] fs: Allow fine-grained control of folio sizes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:29:14 -0800
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@...kajraghav.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	mcgrof@...nel.org, gost.dev@...sung.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	kbusch@...nel.org, chandan.babu@...cle.com, p.raghav@...sung.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hare@...e.de, willy@...radead.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, david@...morbit.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 01/14] fs: Allow fine-grained control of folio sizes

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:05:54PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 08:34:31AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:37:00AM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> > > From: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>
> > > 
> > > Some filesystems want to be able to limit the maximum size of folios,
> > > and some want to be able to ensure that folios are at least a certain
> > > size.  Add mapping_set_folio_orders() to allow this level of control.
> > > The max folio order parameter is ignored and it is always set to
> > > MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER.
> > 
> > Why?  If MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER is 8 and I instead pass in max==3, I'm
> > going to be surprised by my constraint being ignored.  Maybe I said that
> > because I'm not prepared to handle an order-7 folio; or some customer
> > will have some weird desire to twist this knob to make their workflow
> > faster.
> > 
> > --D
> Maybe I should have been explicit. We are planning to add support
> for min order in the first round, and we want to add support for max order
> once the min order support is upstreamed. It was done mainly to reduce
> the scope and testing of this series.
> 
> I definitely agree there are usecases for setting the max order. It is
> also the feedback we got from LPC.
> 
> So one idea would be not to expose max option until we add the support
> for max order? So filesystems can only set the min_order with the
> initial support?

Yeah, there's really no point in having an argument that's deliberately
ignored.

--D

> > > +static inline void mapping_set_folio_orders(struct address_space *mapping,
> > > +					    unsigned int min, unsigned int max)
> > > +{
> > > +	if (min == 1)
> > > +		min = 2;
> > > +	if (max < min)
> > > +		max = min;
> > > +	if (max > MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER)
> > > +		max = MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER;
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * XXX: max is ignored as only minimum folio order is supported
> > > +	 * currently.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	mapping->flags = (mapping->flags & ~AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MASK) |
> > > +			 (min << AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MIN) |
> > > +			 (MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER << AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MAX);
> > > +}
> > > +
>