From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: vm/fs meetup in september? Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:23:20 -0600 Message-ID: <20070626032320.GN5181@schatzie.adilger.int> References: <20070624042345.GB20033@wotan.suse.de> <20070625063545.GA1964@infradead.org> <46807B5D.6090604@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Nick Piggin , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, "Martin J. Bligh" To: Nick Piggin Return-path: Received: from mail.clusterfs.com ([206.168.112.78]:50592 "EHLO mail.clusterfs.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752767AbXFZDXW (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:23:22 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46807B5D.6090604@yahoo.com.au> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Jun 26, 2007 12:35 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > Leaving my opinion of higher order pagecache aside, this _may_ be an > example of something that doesn't need a lot of attention, because it > should be fairly uncontroversial from a filesystem's POV? (eg. it is > more a relevant item to memory management and possibly block layer). > OTOH if it is discussed in the context of "large blocks in the buffer > layer is crap because we can do it with higher order pagecache", then > that might be interesting :) FWIW, being able to have large (8-64kB) blocksize would be great for ext2/3/4. We'd sort of been betting on this by limiting the on-disk extent format to 48-bit physical block numbers, and to have 2 patches to implement this in as many weeks is excellent. To me the mechanism doesn't matter, whether through fsblock or high-order PAGE_SIZE. I'll let the rest of you duke it out as long as at least one of them makes it into the kernel. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc.