From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
To: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@pankajraghav.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
mcgrof@kernel.org, gost.dev@samsung.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, kbusch@kernel.org,
chandan.babu@oracle.com, p.raghav@samsung.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hare@suse.de, willy@infradead.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, david@fromorbit.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 01/14] fs: Allow fine-grained control of folio sizes
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:29:14 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240213212914.GW616564@frogsfrogsfrogs> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xy45wh2y55oinrvkhea36yxtnqmsoikp7eawaa2b5ejivfv4ku@ob72fvbkj4uh>
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:05:54PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 08:34:31AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:37:00AM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> > > From: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>
> > >
> > > Some filesystems want to be able to limit the maximum size of folios,
> > > and some want to be able to ensure that folios are at least a certain
> > > size. Add mapping_set_folio_orders() to allow this level of control.
> > > The max folio order parameter is ignored and it is always set to
> > > MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER.
> >
> > Why? If MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER is 8 and I instead pass in max==3, I'm
> > going to be surprised by my constraint being ignored. Maybe I said that
> > because I'm not prepared to handle an order-7 folio; or some customer
> > will have some weird desire to twist this knob to make their workflow
> > faster.
> >
> > --D
> Maybe I should have been explicit. We are planning to add support
> for min order in the first round, and we want to add support for max order
> once the min order support is upstreamed. It was done mainly to reduce
> the scope and testing of this series.
>
> I definitely agree there are usecases for setting the max order. It is
> also the feedback we got from LPC.
>
> So one idea would be not to expose max option until we add the support
> for max order? So filesystems can only set the min_order with the
> initial support?
Yeah, there's really no point in having an argument that's deliberately
ignored.
--D
> > > +static inline void mapping_set_folio_orders(struct address_space *mapping,
> > > + unsigned int min, unsigned int max)
> > > +{
> > > + if (min == 1)
> > > + min = 2;
> > > + if (max < min)
> > > + max = min;
> > > + if (max > MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER)
> > > + max = MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * XXX: max is ignored as only minimum folio order is supported
> > > + * currently.
> > > + */
> > > + mapping->flags = (mapping->flags & ~AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MASK) |
> > > + (min << AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MIN) |
> > > + (MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER << AS_FOLIO_ORDER_MAX);
> > > +}
> > > +
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-13 21:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-13 9:36 [RFC v2 00/14] enable bs > ps in XFS Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 9:37 ` [RFC v2 01/14] fs: Allow fine-grained control of folio sizes Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 12:03 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-02-13 16:34 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-13 21:05 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 21:29 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2024-02-14 19:00 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-02-15 10:34 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-14 18:49 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-02-15 10:21 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 9:37 ` [RFC v2 02/14] filemap: align the index to mapping_min_order in the page cache Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 12:20 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-02-13 21:13 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 22:00 ` Dave Chinner
2024-02-13 9:37 ` [RFC v2 03/14] filemap: use mapping_min_order while allocating folios Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 14:58 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-02-13 16:38 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-13 22:05 ` Dave Chinner
2024-02-14 10:13 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 9:37 ` [RFC v2 04/14] readahead: set file_ra_state->ra_pages to be at least mapping_min_order Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 14:59 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-02-13 16:46 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-13 22:09 ` Dave Chinner
2024-02-14 13:32 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-14 13:53 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 9:37 ` [RFC v2 05/14] readahead: align index to mapping_min_order in ondemand_ra and force_ra Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 15:00 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-02-13 16:46 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-13 22:29 ` Dave Chinner
2024-02-14 15:10 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 9:37 ` [RFC v2 06/14] readahead: rework loop in page_cache_ra_unbounded() Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 16:47 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-13 9:37 ` [RFC v2 07/14] readahead: allocate folios with mapping_min_order in ra_(unbounded|order) Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 15:01 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-02-13 16:47 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-13 9:37 ` [RFC v2 08/14] mm: do not split a folio if it has minimum folio order requirement Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 15:02 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-02-13 9:37 ` [RFC v2 09/14] mm: Support order-1 folios in the page cache Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 15:03 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-02-13 9:37 ` [RFC v2 10/14] iomap: fix iomap_dio_zero() for fs bs > system page size Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 15:06 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-02-13 16:30 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-13 21:27 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 21:30 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-14 15:13 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 9:37 ` [RFC v2 11/14] xfs: expose block size in stat Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 16:27 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-13 21:32 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 9:37 ` [RFC v2 12/14] xfs: make the calculation generic in xfs_sb_validate_fsb_count() Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 16:26 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-13 21:48 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 22:44 ` Dave Chinner
2024-02-14 15:51 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 9:37 ` [RFC v2 13/14] xfs: add an experimental CONFIG_XFS_LBS option Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 16:39 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-13 21:19 ` Dave Chinner
2024-02-13 21:54 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 22:45 ` Dave Chinner
2024-02-13 9:37 ` [RFC v2 14/14] xfs: enable block size larger than page size support Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 16:20 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-14 16:40 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-13 21:34 ` Dave Chinner
2024-02-14 16:35 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-02-15 22:17 ` Dave Chinner
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=20240213212914.GW616564@frogsfrogsfrogs \
--to=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chandan.babu@oracle.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=gost.dev@samsung.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel@pankajraghav.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=p.raghav@samsung.com \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).