From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f176.google.com (mail-pl1-f176.google.com [209.85.214.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A4BF768FE; Thu, 21 Dec 2023 20:33:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-pl1-f176.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1d307cf18fdso8663535ad.3; Thu, 21 Dec 2023 12:33:10 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1703190790; x=1703795590; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=/7KbnN33cEMU1ra8cl0k5N0j8jcZeZqi4GJ0MVOhJUc=; b=kGYxG1o2byY4AyIkpBkmSt/GS2tsrxOYktk0pke3Ra4MCB+fMF+efX4UjQxtVwjRG0 JYAgs2G46X9PiV8F4PhYfN+Tn5ksi3gRx7/IpbIouyceIYMmvJ7a+w1/7OARN8PAATKp 0BaFOpgmF2xU+05ynmVFJjRO+WaX+zPr/wshLPfu7/Fplu8Fh9OBs+jT9pnTjsn0Qpby 0ynzOqKic6xkImwyI9aChTvmdv0m0i7C36r+6zhvnOwVwWWNrHgz7v6O0gXVIjjHgtrW NFMeCm77sugeF0fvjR/XLN9dKvmdCIKOc9UY4YTavAmiWO9KxQPKy9/FADQE5dd2h9bk LLkg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwzzH3M2G46gIFRjSsDZgn0eqPQYvc6yDmBL2XZeby3mM/DRNTi mWvFcrPC3pt/79Z2kaTTHWFjo66GV6s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEuLC9+wqhPPyf5+htFMuDuga2BsWAd+xWyMzex6dtSWq5jWA+ph6hyRpScpzzQ0l6JSfYajw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ecce:b0:1d2:e521:dd72 with SMTP id a14-20020a170902ecce00b001d2e521dd72mr230098plh.109.1703190790351; Thu, 21 Dec 2023 12:33:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2620:0:1000:8411:d9ff:baa2:bd58:437a? ([2620:0:1000:8411:d9ff:baa2:bd58:437a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z3-20020a170903018300b001cfa718039bsm2045190plg.216.2023.12.21.12.33.09 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Dec 2023 12:33:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5c356222-fe9e-41b0-b7fe-218fbcde4573@acm.org> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 12:33:08 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Large block for I/O Content-Language: en-US To: Hannes Reinecke , lsf-pc@lists.linuxfoundation.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" References: <7970ad75-ca6a-34b9-43ea-c6f67fe6eae6@iogearbox.net> <4343d07b-b1b2-d43b-c201-a48e89145e5c@iogearbox.net> <03ebbc5f-2ff5-4f3c-8c5b-544413c55257@suse.de> From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: <03ebbc5f-2ff5-4f3c-8c5b-544413c55257@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12/20/23 07:03, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > I would like to discuss > > Large blocks for I/O > > Since the presentation last year there has been quite some developments > and improvements in some areas, but at the same time a lack of progress > in other areas. > In this presentation/discussion I would like to highlight the current > state of affairs, existing pain points, and future directions of development. > It might be an idea to co-locate it with the MM folks as we do have > quite some overlap with page-cache improvements and hugepage handling. Hi Hannes, I'm interested in this topic. But I'm wondering whether the disadvantages of large blocks will be covered? Some NAND storage vendors are less than enthusiast about increasing the logical block size beyond 4 KiB because it increases the size of many writes to the device and hence increases write amplification. Thanks, Bart.