Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-119258-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:54:22 +0100
From: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@pankajraghav.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, 
	gost.dev@samsung.com, chandan.babu@oracle.com, hare@suse.de, mcgrof@kernel.org, 
	djwong@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	david@fromorbit.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/11] enable bs > ps in XFS
Message-ID: <vyw2u4kmij7ddzfj5xfacc5lgmpbvxif3ennxp7oselxt4agfj@kuli2o7nrzin>
References: <20240313170253.2324812-1-kernel@pankajraghav.com>
 <ZgHOK9T2K9HKkju1@casper.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZgHOK9T2K9HKkju1@casper.infradead.org>

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 07:19:07PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 06:02:42PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> > This is the third version of the series that enables block size > page size
> > (Large Block Size) in XFS. The context and motivation can be seen in cover
> > letter of the RFC v1[1]. We also recorded a talk about this effort at LPC [3],
> > if someone would like more context on this effort.
> 
> Thank you.  This is a lot better.

Thanks.
> 
> I'm still trying to understand your opinion on the contents of the
> file_ra_state.  Is it supposed to be properly aligned at all times, or
> do we work with it in the terms of "desired number of pages" and then
> force it to conform to the minimum-block-size reality right at the end?

The intention of the patches is to do the latter. Apart from the patch
that rounds up file_ra_state->ra_pages, I don't poke file_ra_state
anywhere and it is updated only at the end after we enforce
minimum-block-size constraint (page_cache_ra_order).

> Because you seem to be doing both at various points.
Could you elaborate more on where I do both? Maybe I am missing
something and I could change it in the next series.

The previous series was trying to do both but I intentially stuck to
updating the ra_state at the end in this series.