From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: [00/41] Large Blocksize Support V7 (adds memmap support) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 01:26:57 +0200 Message-ID: <20070911232657.GB14675@v2.random> References: <20070911060349.993975297@sgi.com> <200709110452.20363.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20070911121225.GE13132@lazybastard.org> <20070911202942.GB20688@lazybastard.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel , Nick Piggin , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Mel Gorman , William Lee Irwin III , David Chinner , Jens Axboe , Badari Pulavarty , Maxim Levitsky , Fengguang Wu , swin wang , totty.lu@gmail.com, hugh@veritas.com To: Christoph Lameter Return-path: Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:35774 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759604AbXIKX1B (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:27:01 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 01:41:08PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > The advantages of this approach over Andreas is basically that the 4k > filesystems still can be used as is. 4k is useful for binaries and for If you mean that with my approach you can't use a 4k filesystem as is, that's not correct. I even run the (admittedly premature but promising) benchmarks on my patch on a 4k blocksized filesystem... Guess what, you can even still mount a 1k fs on a 2.6 kernel. The main advantage I can see in your patch is that distributions won't need to ship a 64k PAGE_SIZE kernel rpm (but your single rpm will be slower).