linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/11] enable bs

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: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:54:22 +0100
From: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@...kajraghav.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	gost.dev@...sung.com, chandan.babu@...cle.com, hare@...e.de, mcgrof@...nel.org, 
	djwong@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	david@...morbit.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/11] enable bs > ps in XFS

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 07:19:07PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 06:02:42PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> > This is the third version of the series that enables block size > page size
> > (Large Block Size) in XFS. The context and motivation can be seen in cover
> > letter of the RFC v1[1]. We also recorded a talk about this effort at LPC [3],
> > if someone would like more context on this effort.
> 
> Thank you.  This is a lot better.

Thanks.
> 
> I'm still trying to understand your opinion on the contents of the
> file_ra_state.  Is it supposed to be properly aligned at all times, or
> do we work with it in the terms of "desired number of pages" and then
> force it to conform to the minimum-block-size reality right at the end?

The intention of the patches is to do the latter. Apart from the patch
that rounds up file_ra_state->ra_pages, I don't poke file_ra_state
anywhere and it is updated only at the end after we enforce
minimum-block-size constraint (page_cache_ra_order).

> Because you seem to be doing both at various points.
Could you elaborate more on where I do both? Maybe I am missing
something and I could change it in the next series.

The previous series was trying to do both but I intentially stuck to
updating the ra_state at the end in this series.