All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org,
	dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: How to handle >16TB devices on 32 bit hosts ??
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:31:55 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090718043155.GI4231@webber.adilger.int> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <19041.4714.686158.130252@notabene.brown>

On Jul 18, 2009  10:08 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
>  It has recently come to by attention that Linux on a 32 bit host does
>  not handle devices beyond 16TB particularly well.
> 
>  In particular, any access that goes through the page cache for the
>  block device is limited to a pgoff_t number of pages.
>  As pgoff_t is "unsigned long" and hence 32bit, and as page size is
>  4096, this comes to 16TB total.
:
:
>  I suppose we could add a CONFIG option to make pgoff_t be 
>  "unsigned long long".  Would the cost/benefit of that be acceptable?

I think the point is that for those people who want to use > 16TB
devices on 32-bit platforms (e.g. embedded/appliance systems) the
choice is between "completely non-functional" and "uses a bit more
memory per page", and the answer is pretty obvious.

For users who don't want to support this, they don't have to (just
like CONFIG_LBD or whatever), and for 64-bit systems it is irrelevant.
I think years ago we had the idea that it would be 64-bit everywhere
by now, and while that is true for many systems, embedded/appliance
systems will probably continue to be 32-bit for as long as they can.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: How to handle >16TB devices on 32 bit hosts ??
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:31:55 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090718043155.GI4231@webber.adilger.int> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <19041.4714.686158.130252@notabene.brown>

On Jul 18, 2009  10:08 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
>  It has recently come to by attention that Linux on a 32 bit host does
>  not handle devices beyond 16TB particularly well.
> 
>  In particular, any access that goes through the page cache for the
>  block device is limited to a pgoff_t number of pages.
>  As pgoff_t is "unsigned long" and hence 32bit, and as page size is
>  4096, this comes to 16TB total.
:
:
>  I suppose we could add a CONFIG option to make pgoff_t be 
>  "unsigned long long".  Would the cost/benefit of that be acceptable?

I think the point is that for those people who want to use > 16TB
devices on 32-bit platforms (e.g. embedded/appliance systems) the
choice is between "completely non-functional" and "uses a bit more
memory per page", and the answer is pretty obvious.

For users who don't want to support this, they don't have to (just
like CONFIG_LBD or whatever), and for 64-bit systems it is irrelevant.
I think years ago we had the idea that it would be 64-bit everywhere
by now, and while that is true for many systems, embedded/appliance
systems will probably continue to be 32-bit for as long as they can.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.


  reply	other threads:[~2009-07-18  4:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-07-18  0:08 How to handle >16TB devices on 32 bit hosts ?? Neil Brown
2009-07-18  4:31 ` Andreas Dilger [this message]
2009-07-18  4:31   ` Andreas Dilger
2009-07-18  6:16   ` Andi Kleen
2009-07-18  6:52     ` Andreas Dilger
2009-07-18  7:48       ` Andi Kleen
2009-07-18 13:49         ` Theodore Tso
2009-07-18 14:21           ` Andi Kleen
2009-07-18 14:21             ` Andi Kleen
2009-07-18 14:32             ` Andreas Dilger
2009-07-18 18:19             ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-07-19  0:54             ` Leslie Rhorer
2009-07-19 11:04               ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-07-18 14:21           ` Andi Kleen
2009-07-29 15:07           ` Pavel Machek
2009-07-29 15:07           ` Pavel Machek
2009-07-29 15:07             ` Pavel Machek
2009-07-19  3:44         ` Tapani Tarvainen
2009-07-18  6:09 ` Andi Kleen
2009-07-18  6:09   ` Andi Kleen
2009-07-22  6:59 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-22  6:59   ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-22 18:32   ` Andreas Dilger
2009-07-22 18:51     ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-22 18:51       ` Andrew Morton

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090718043155.GI4231@webber.adilger.int \
    --to=adilger@sun.com \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=neilb@suse.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.