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]

Message-ID: <1b99068c-ac1b-4121-93f4-23ba4863b8b0@pankajraghav.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 16:06:02 +0100
From: Pankaj Raghav <kernel@...kajraghav.com>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 gost.dev@...sung.com, chandan.babu@...cle.com, 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 26/03/2024 10:53, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 3/25/24 20:19, 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.
>>
>> 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?
>> Because you seem to be doing both at various points.
> 
> Guess what, that's what I had been pondering, too.
> Each way has its benefits, I guess.
> 
> Question really is do we keep the readahead iterator in units of pages,
> and convert the result, or do we modify the readahead iterator to work
> on folios, and convert the inputs.
> 
> Doesn't really matter much, but we need to decide. The former is probably easier on the caller, and
> the latter is easier on the consumer.
> Take your pick; I really don't mind.
> 
> But we should document the result :-)
> 

Having experimented both approaches, I prefer the latter as it looks more consistent and
contain the changes to few functions.

> Cheers,
> 
> Hannes
>