On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 11:03 AM Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 05:13:55PM -0700, Joanne Koong wrote: > > Introduce the capability to dynamically configure the FUSE_MAX_MAX_PAGES > > limit through a sysctl. This enhancement allows system administrators to > > adjust the value based on system-specific requirements. > > > > This removes the previous static limit of 256 max pages, which limits > > the max write size of a request to 1 MiB (on 4096 pagesize systems). > > Having the ability to up the max write size beyond 1 MiB allows for the > > perf improvements detailed in this thread [1]. > > > > $ sysctl -a | grep fuse_max_max_pages > > fs.fuse.fuse_max_max_pages = 256 > > > > $ sysctl -n fs.fuse.fuse_max_max_pages > > 256 > > > > $ echo 1024 | sudo tee /proc/sys/fs/fuse/fuse_max_max_pages > > 1024 > > > > $ sysctl -n fs.fuse.fuse_max_max_pages > > 1024 > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20240124070512.52207-1-jefflexu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u > > > > Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@xxxxxxxxx> > > Overall the change is great, and I see why you named it the way you did, but I > think may be 'fuse_max_pages_limit' may be a better name? The original constant > name wasn't great, but it was fine in its context. I think having it as an > interface we should name it something less silly. 'fuse_max_pages_limit' sounds great to me. I'll submit v2 with this rename. > > I'm not married to this thought, what do the rest of you think? Whatever name > we settle on is fine, you can add > > Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > once we settle on the right name for this. Thanks, > > Josef
