On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 01:28:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 01:18:19AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 01:14:55AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 12:55:44AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > This is an initial attempt to add support for block size > PAGE_SIZE for tmpfs. > > > > > > The concept of a block size doesn't make any sense for tmpfs. What > > > are you actually trying to do here? > > > > More of helping to test high order folios for tmpfs. Swap for instance > > would be one thing we could use to test. > > I'm still not sure where the concept of a block size would come in here. >From a filesystem perspective that's what we call it as well today, and tmpfs implements a simple one, just that indeed this just a high order folio support. The languge for blocksize was used before my patches for the sb->s_blocksize and sb->s_blocksize_bits. Even for shmem_statfs() buf->f_bsize. I understand we should move the sb->s_blocksize to the block_device and use the page order for address_space, but we can't negate the existing stuff there immediately. Luis
