[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZugyzR8Ak6hJNlXF@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 14:29:49 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Christian Theune <ct@...ingcircus.io>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
"linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Dao <dqminh@...udflare.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, clm@...a.com,
regressions@...ts.linux.dev, regressions@...mhuis.info
Subject: Re: Known and unfixed active data loss bug in MM + XFS with large
folios since Dec 2021 (any kernel from 6.1 upwards)
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 02:11:22PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> So this issue it new to me as well. One of the items this cycle is the
> work to enable support for block sizes that are larger than page sizes
> via the large block size (LBS) series that's been sitting in -next for a
> long time. That work specifically targets xfs and builds on top of the
> large folio support.
>
> If the support for large folios is going to be reverted in xfs then I
> see no point to merge the LBS work now. So I'm holding off on sending
> that pull request until a decision is made (for xfs). As far as I
> understand, supporting larger block sizes will not be meaningful without
> large folio support.
This is unwarranted; please send this pull request. We're not going to
rip out all of the infrastructure although we might end up disabling it
by default. There's a bunch of other work queued up behind that, and not
having it in Linus' tree is just going to make everything more painful.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists