On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 01:28:10AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:18:25AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote: > > Yes, thanks for the suggestion. I did think about it before I went with the > > new flag. Not like hugetlb, THP will *not* guarantee huge page is used all > > the time, it may fallback to regular 4K page or may get split. I'm not sure > > how the applications use f_bsize field, it might break existing applications > > and the value might be abused by applications to have counter optimization. > > So, IMHO, a new flag may sound safer. > > But st_blksize isn't the block size, that is why I suggested it. It is > the preferred I/O size, and various file systems can report way > larger values than the block size already. I agree. This looks like a better fit. -- Kirill A. Shutemov
