From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CFB1C48BEF for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 10:34:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id CF24E6B0078; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 05:34:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id C7AD88D000E; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 05:34:36 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id AF4D36B008A; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 05:34:36 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 962E16B0078 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 05:34:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin26.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C39C140F4E for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 10:34:36 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 81793679352.26.2A32965 Received: from mout-p-103.mailbox.org (mout-p-103.mailbox.org [80.241.56.161]) by imf22.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3DCBC001B for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 10:34:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf22.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=pankajraghav.com header.s=MBO0001 header.b=qfjHyfZj; spf=pass (imf22.hostedemail.com: domain of kernel@pankajraghav.com designates 80.241.56.161 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kernel@pankajraghav.com; dmarc=none ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1707993275; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=LtJMv3OpCPMbfXLsBLVXagbPP7DLavp46+ckP2yjejI=; b=CujX+307v4ngDCEITnixEeqFVa2TTFQoHXdDxtySuDnTuyEEFvYZnyRvP08j5DU+FBMOG3 3Q0r34UKCgKi152WpQgqXqxPG1/wfLaa0d/gxiCYHIaI0tvFwVHqUG+MRaylYzZI7Q6uKS 51znVI3uMnM3FunSgmhLcq778hTjF18= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1707993275; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=L8f1EjPOe9T8GhT9PgabUryEUCEDtErjTt4sIofk+XUPNHxV9lIybJjAe6CAqptX4Lm++b 6eoHRE3rC5Jviiu8DWb62aCIgINXjuJJg14gHCpMHbN+B2f4ddno/IMDDMOTaL2KqyXssU UufoBTHOdZOdrYL+xAbYn+LWN8bh/rM= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf22.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=pankajraghav.com header.s=MBO0001 header.b=qfjHyfZj; spf=pass (imf22.hostedemail.com: domain of kernel@pankajraghav.com designates 80.241.56.161 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kernel@pankajraghav.com; dmarc=none Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org (smtp1.mailbox.org [10.196.197.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-103.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TbBJQ202Dz9sjQ; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:34:30 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pankajraghav.com; s=MBO0001; t=1707993270; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=LtJMv3OpCPMbfXLsBLVXagbPP7DLavp46+ckP2yjejI=; b=qfjHyfZj/UNcjxY50u5f+PTADR/t9f8/pkZtsIsajtcNAnN04HYby3eKmCSOxui0D+eZXm +6XCy3MCNKhPz8scfdNrdTpTyQ3nJo6ULbczuLaaY0VVJCbDzXIdoayNZGXFQ7RH9WHe/z f78mKbiBnlsADlt/2ifu865/to0LO/uSW/xKTb47JP96uT2ZUowlbuuN0QF18OFTn+qKnb 5uT1qE17szzBwp6rHr/cPL+bajrGkqIyX0E9WZZMgVumEmEnetiQFSim6WAZuDko07pcSM avoJjlWteDUmtXh8KWWLxp6LtF1MtbId4kCatWRmFFrMMkMrUZbMUzRhatfcQA== Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:34:24 +0100 From: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, mcgrof@kernel.org, gost.dev@samsung.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kbusch@kernel.org, chandan.babu@oracle.com, p.raghav@samsung.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hare@suse.de, linux-mm@kvack.org, david@fromorbit.com Subject: Re: [RFC v2 01/14] fs: Allow fine-grained control of folio sizes Message-ID: References: <20240213093713.1753368-1-kernel@pankajraghav.com> <20240213093713.1753368-2-kernel@pankajraghav.com> <20240213163431.GS6184@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20240213212914.GW616564@frogsfrogsfrogs> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: B3DCBC001B X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam11 X-Stat-Signature: 7cio3rn8x6wrioopaqaz1r3s4qcmwbaa X-HE-Tag: 1707993274-838035 X-HE-Meta: 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 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: > > > Maybe I should have been explicit. We are planning to add support > > > for min order in the first round, and we want to add support for max order > > > once the min order support is upstreamed. It was done mainly to reduce > > > the scope and testing of this series. > > > > > > I definitely agree there are usecases for setting the max order. It is > > > also the feedback we got from LPC. > > > > > > So one idea would be not to expose max option until we add the support > > > for max order? So filesystems can only set the min_order with the > > > initial support? > > > > Yeah, there's really no point in having an argument that's deliberately > > ignored. > > I favour introducing the right APIs even if they're not fully implemented. > We have no filesystems today that need this, so it doesn't need to > be implemented, but if we have to go back and add it, it's more churn > for every filesystem. I'm open to better ideas about the API; I think > for a lot of filesystems they only want to set the minimum, so maybe > introducing that API now would be a good thing. I will introduce a new API that only exposes the min order for now. I agree with you that I don't see a lot of filesystems other than XFS using this in the near future. We deduce min order based on the filesystem blocksize but we don't have any mechanisms in place from userspace to set the max order for a filesystem. So that also needs to be thought through and discussed with the community. I hope to start working on max_order immediately after upstreaming the min_order feature. -- Pankaj