From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756189AbdAJWyg (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:54:36 -0500 Received: from LGEAMRELO13.lge.com ([156.147.23.53]:37960 "EHLO lgeamrelo13.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756074AbdAJWyc (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:54:32 -0500 X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.125 X-Original-MAILFROM: minchan@kernel.org X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.223.161 X-Original-MAILFROM: minchan@kernel.org Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 07:54:27 +0900 From: Minchan Kim To: Jerome Marchand Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky , Jens Axboe , Hyeoncheol Lee , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Robert Jennings Subject: Re: [RFC] blk: increase logical_block_size to unsigned int Message-ID: <20170110225427.GB31163@bbox> References: <1483938267-8858-1-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org> <20170109143344.GA753@tigerII.localdomain> <978119764.6177321.1483974560473.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <978119764.6177321.1483974560473.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Jerome, Sergey On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 10:09:20AM -0500, Jerome Marchand wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sergey Senozhatsky" > > To: "Minchan Kim" > > Cc: "Jens Axboe" , "Hyeoncheol Lee" , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, > > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Andrew Morton" , "Sergey Senozhatsky" > > , "Jerome Marchand" > > Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 3:33:44 PM > > Subject: Re: [RFC] blk: increase logical_block_size to unsigned int Remove Robert's mail. It didn't work and don't know his update mail > > > > On (01/09/17 14:04), Minchan Kim wrote: > > > Mostly, zram is used as swap system on embedded world so it want to do IO > > > as PAGE_SIZE aligned/size IO unit. For that, one of the problem was > > > blk_queue_logical_block_size(zram->disk->queue, PAGE_SIZE) made overflow > > > in *64K page system* so [1] changed it to constant 4096. > > > Since that, partial IO can happen so zram should handle it which makes zram > > > complicated[2]. > > > > > > > I thought that zram partial IO support is there because some file > > systems cannot cope with large logical_block_size. like FAT, for > > example. am I wrong? > > Yes indeed. When we discussed the patch adding the partial I/O, increasing the > size of logical_block was considered. The reason we didn't go the easy path was > that not all block users could handle 64k blocks. FAT is one of them. I thought it might make some FSes which doesn't support 64K block but I didn't know what FSes exactly. I thought most popular FSes in linux may work well(e.g., ext, btrfs, xfs). Thanks for the pointer. I guess there might be more as well as FAT so let's keep it. Thanks, Sergey and Jerome!