Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:6 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:6;
Message-ID: <4dbdcc6c-6bd1-faf4-7187-cc048acd2125@samsung.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Sep 2023 14:35:27 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
        Thunderbird/102.15.1
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/23] Enable block size > page size in XFS
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Pankaj Raghav <kernel@pankajraghav.com>
CC:     <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <david@fromorbit.com>, <da.gomez@samsung.com>,
        <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <djwong@kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        <chandan.babu@oracle.com>, <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        <gost.dev@samsung.com>
From:   Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZQSnWUF2M1iNzGWM@casper.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
CMS-TYPE: 201P
References: <20230915183848.1018717-1-kernel@pankajraghav.com>
        <CGME20230915185016eucas1p18b6d44c1b875ef8d87a9575e3ddff8d1@eucas1p1.samsung.com>
        <ZQSnWUF2M1iNzGWM@casper.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 2023-09-15 20:50, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 08:38:25PM +0200, Pankaj Raghav wrote:
>> Only XFS was enabled and tested as a part of this series as it has
>> supported block sizes up to 64k and sector sizes up to 32k for years.
>> The only thing missing was the page cache magic to enable bs > ps. However any filesystem
>> that doesn't depend on buffer-heads and support larger block sizes
>> already should be able to leverage this effort to also support LBS,
>> bs > ps.
> 
> I think you should choose whether you're going to use 'bs > ps' or LBS
> and stick to it.  They're both pretty inscrutable and using both
> interchanagbly is worse.
> 

Got it! Probably I will stick to Large block size and explain what it means
at the start of the patchset.

> But I think filesystems which use buffer_heads should be fine to support
> bs > ps.  The problems with the buffer cache are really when you try to
> support small block sizes and large folio sizes (eg arrays of bhs on
> the stack).  Supporting bs == folio_size shouldn't be a problem.
> 

I remember some patches from you trying to avoid the stack limitation while working
with bh. Thanks for the clarification!