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:   Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:57:55 -0700
From:   Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To:     Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>
Cc:     Daeho Jeong <daeho43@gmail.com>,
        Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@google.com>, kernel-team@android.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v4] f2fs: introduce fragment allocation mode
 mount option
Message-ID: <YUkR84sklj0SgosC@google.com>
References: <20210902172404.3517626-1-daeho43@gmail.com>
 <YTvmhVhLlBPeASHT@google.com>
 <9f4a2954-e8c9-abc5-5df4-a7cec53433a3@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9f4a2954-e8c9-abc5-5df4-a7cec53433a3@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2021/9/11 7:13, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > Wait. Why do we need to add so many options here? I was expecting to see
> > performance difference when getting random segments or random blocks as
> > an extreme case. I don't get the point why we need the middle of those cases.
> 
> I guess we can simply the aging test procedure of filesystem by changing a bit
> based on this patch.

My question was on "fragment:fixed_block".

> 
> See comments in below thread.
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/425daf77-8020-26ce-dc9f-019d9a881b78@kernel.org/
> 
> Thanks,