From: Jaegeuk Kim via Linux-f2fs-devel <linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 0/4] f2fs: Remove uses of writepage
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 21:38:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z9Shx72mSqnQxCh3@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z9RR2ubkS9CafUdE@casper.infradead.org>
On 03/14, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 01:22:41AM +0000, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 03/12, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 07:50:38PM +0000, patchwork-bot+f2fs@kernel.org wrote:
> > > > Hello:
> > > >
> > > > This series was applied to jaegeuk/f2fs.git (dev)
> > > > by Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>:
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > FWIW, I have a tree with 75 patches in it on top of this that do more
> > > folio conversion work. It's not done yet; maybe another 200 patches to
> > > go? I don't think it's worth posting at this point in the cycle, so
> > > I'll wait until -rc1 to post, by which point it'll probably be much
> > > larger.
> >
> > Ok, thanks for the work! Will keep an eye on.
>
> Unfortunately, I thnk I have to abandon this effort. It's only going
> to make supporting large folios harder (ie there would then need to be
> an equivalently disruptive series adding support for large folios).
>
> The fundamental problem is that f2fs has no concept of block size !=
> PAGE_SIZE. So if you create a filesystem on a 4kB PAGE_SIZE kernel,
> you can't mount it on a 16kB PAGE_SIZE kernel. An example:
>
> int f2fs_recover_inline_xattr(struct inode *inode, struct page *page)
> {
> struct f2fs_inode *ri;
> ipage = f2fs_get_node_page(F2FS_I_SB(inode), inode->i_ino);
> ri = F2FS_INODE(page);
>
> so an inode number is an index into the filesystem in PAGE_SIZE units,
> not in filesystem block size units. Fixing this is a major effort, and
> I lack the confidence in my abilities to do it without breaking anything.
>
> As an outline of what needs to happen, I think that rather than passing
> around so many struct page pointers, we should be passing around either
> folio + offset, or we should be passing around struct f2fs_inode pointers.
> My preference is for the latter. We can always convert back to the
> folio containing the inode if we need to (eg to mark it dirty) and it
> adds some typesafety by ensuring that we're passing around pointers that
> we believe belong to an inode and not, say, a struct page which happens
> to contain a directory entry.
>
> This is a monster task, I think. I'm going to have to disable f2fs
> from testing with split page/folio. This is going to be a big problem
> for Android.
I see. fyi; in Android, I'm thinking to run 16KB page kernel with 16KB format
natively to keep block_size = PAGE_SIZE. Wasn't large folio to support a set
of pages while keeping block_size = PAGE_SIZE?
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: chao@kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 0/4] f2fs: Remove uses of writepage
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 21:38:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z9Shx72mSqnQxCh3@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z9RR2ubkS9CafUdE@casper.infradead.org>
On 03/14, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 01:22:41AM +0000, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 03/12, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 07:50:38PM +0000, patchwork-bot+f2fs@kernel.org wrote:
> > > > Hello:
> > > >
> > > > This series was applied to jaegeuk/f2fs.git (dev)
> > > > by Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>:
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > FWIW, I have a tree with 75 patches in it on top of this that do more
> > > folio conversion work. It's not done yet; maybe another 200 patches to
> > > go? I don't think it's worth posting at this point in the cycle, so
> > > I'll wait until -rc1 to post, by which point it'll probably be much
> > > larger.
> >
> > Ok, thanks for the work! Will keep an eye on.
>
> Unfortunately, I thnk I have to abandon this effort. It's only going
> to make supporting large folios harder (ie there would then need to be
> an equivalently disruptive series adding support for large folios).
>
> The fundamental problem is that f2fs has no concept of block size !=
> PAGE_SIZE. So if you create a filesystem on a 4kB PAGE_SIZE kernel,
> you can't mount it on a 16kB PAGE_SIZE kernel. An example:
>
> int f2fs_recover_inline_xattr(struct inode *inode, struct page *page)
> {
> struct f2fs_inode *ri;
> ipage = f2fs_get_node_page(F2FS_I_SB(inode), inode->i_ino);
> ri = F2FS_INODE(page);
>
> so an inode number is an index into the filesystem in PAGE_SIZE units,
> not in filesystem block size units. Fixing this is a major effort, and
> I lack the confidence in my abilities to do it without breaking anything.
>
> As an outline of what needs to happen, I think that rather than passing
> around so many struct page pointers, we should be passing around either
> folio + offset, or we should be passing around struct f2fs_inode pointers.
> My preference is for the latter. We can always convert back to the
> folio containing the inode if we need to (eg to mark it dirty) and it
> adds some typesafety by ensuring that we're passing around pointers that
> we believe belong to an inode and not, say, a struct page which happens
> to contain a directory entry.
>
> This is a monster task, I think. I'm going to have to disable f2fs
> from testing with split page/folio. This is going to be a big problem
> for Android.
I see. fyi; in Android, I'm thinking to run 16KB page kernel with 16KB format
natively to keep block_size = PAGE_SIZE. Wasn't large folio to support a set
of pages while keeping block_size = PAGE_SIZE?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-14 21:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-07 18:21 [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 0/4] f2fs: Remove uses of writepage Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)
2025-03-07 18:21 ` Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)
2025-03-07 18:21 ` [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/4] f2fs: Remove check for ->writepage Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)
2025-03-07 18:21 ` Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)
2025-03-11 11:48 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu via Linux-f2fs-devel
2025-03-11 11:48 ` Chao Yu
2025-03-07 18:21 ` [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/4] f2fs: Remove f2fs_write_data_page() Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)
2025-03-07 18:21 ` Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)
2025-03-11 11:48 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu via Linux-f2fs-devel
2025-03-11 11:48 ` Chao Yu
2025-03-07 18:21 ` [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 3/4] f2fs: Remove f2fs_write_meta_page() Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)
2025-03-07 18:21 ` Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)
2025-03-11 11:49 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu via Linux-f2fs-devel
2025-03-11 11:49 ` Chao Yu
2025-03-07 18:21 ` [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 4/4] f2fs: Remove f2fs_write_node_page() Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)
2025-03-07 18:21 ` Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)
2025-03-11 11:49 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu via Linux-f2fs-devel
2025-03-11 11:49 ` Chao Yu
2025-03-07 20:39 ` [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 0/4] f2fs: Remove uses of writepage Jaegeuk Kim via Linux-f2fs-devel
2025-03-07 20:39 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2025-03-07 20:48 ` [f2fs-dev] " Matthew Wilcox
2025-03-07 20:48 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-03-07 22:13 ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim via Linux-f2fs-devel
2025-03-07 22:13 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2025-03-11 19:50 ` [f2fs-dev] " patchwork-bot+f2fs--- via Linux-f2fs-devel
2025-03-11 19:50 ` patchwork-bot+f2fs
2025-03-12 0:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-03-12 0:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-03-12 1:22 ` Jaegeuk Kim via Linux-f2fs-devel
2025-03-12 1:22 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2025-03-14 15:57 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-03-14 15:57 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-03-14 21:38 ` Jaegeuk Kim via Linux-f2fs-devel [this message]
2025-03-14 21:38 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2025-03-26 3:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-03-26 3:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-03-27 22:27 ` Jaegeuk Kim via Linux-f2fs-devel
2025-03-27 22:27 ` Jaegeuk Kim
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=Z9Shx72mSqnQxCh3@google.com \
--to=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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.