Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:58:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:58:15 -0500 Received: from sgi.SGI.COM ([192.48.153.1]:22646 "EHLO sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:58:07 -0500 Message-Id: <200103272356.f2RNuT101368@jen.americas.sgi.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Jesse Pollard cc: jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 64-bit block sizes on 32-bit systems In-Reply-To: Message from Jesse Pollard of "Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:23:32 CST." <200103272223.QAA37189@tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 17:56:29 -0600 From: Steve Lord Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Just a brief add to the discussion, besides which I have a vested interest in this! I do not believe that you can make the addressability of a device larger at the expense of granularity of address space at the bottom end. Just because ext2 has a single size for metadata does not mean everything you put on the disks does. XFS filesystems, for example, can be made with block sizes from 512 bytes to 64Kbytes (ok not working on linux across this range yet, but it will). In all of these cases we have chunks of metadata which are 512 bytes long, and we have chunks bigger than the blocksize. The 512 byte chunks are the superblock and the heads of the freespace structures, there are multilples of them through the filesystem. To top that, we have disk write ordering constraints that could mean that for two of the 512 byte chunks next to each other one must be written to disk now to free log space, the other must not be written to disk because it is in a transaction. We would be forced to do read-modify-write down at some lower level - wait the lower levels would not have the addressability. There are probably other things which will not fly if you lose the addressing granularity. Volume headers and such like would be one possibility. No I don't have a magic bullet solution, but I do not think that just increasing the granularity of the addressing is the correct answer, and yes I do agree that just growing the buffer_head fields is not perfect either. Steve Lord p.s. there was mention of bigger page size, it is not hard to fix, but the swap path will not even work with 64K pages right now. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/