Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 17 Sep 2021 08:18:55 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Folio discussion recap
Message-ID: <YURBX6uBhsKYZAVP@infradead.org>
References: <YSPwmNNuuQhXNToQ@casper.infradead.org>
 <YTu9HIu+wWWvZLxp@moria.home.lan>
 <YUIT2/xXwvZ4IErc@cmpxchg.org>
 <20210916025854.GE34899@magnolia>
 <YUN2vokEM8wgASk8@cmpxchg.org>
 <20210917052440.GJ1756565@dread.disaster.area>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210917052440.GJ1756565@dread.disaster.area>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 03:24:40PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Folios are not perfect, but they are here and they solve many issues
> we need solved. We're never going to have a perfect solution that
> everyone agrees with, so the real question is "are folios good
> enough?". To me the answer is a resounding yes.

Besides agreeing to all what you said, the other important part is:
even if we were to eventually go with Johannes grand plans (which I
disagree with in many apects), what is the harm in doing folios now?

Despite all the fuzz, the pending folio PR does nothing but add type
safety to compound pages.  Which is something we badly need, no matter
what kind of other caching grand plans people have.