On 2023-09-15 20:50, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 08:38:25PM +0200, Pankaj Raghav wrote: >> Only XFS was enabled and tested as a part of this series as it has >> supported block sizes up to 64k and sector sizes up to 32k for years. >> The only thing missing was the page cache magic to enable bs > ps. However any filesystem >> that doesn't depend on buffer-heads and support larger block sizes >> already should be able to leverage this effort to also support LBS, >> bs > ps. > > I think you should choose whether you're going to use 'bs > ps' or LBS > and stick to it. They're both pretty inscrutable and using both > interchanagbly is worse. > Got it! Probably I will stick to Large block size and explain what it means at the start of the patchset. > But I think filesystems which use buffer_heads should be fine to support > bs > ps. The problems with the buffer cache are really when you try to > support small block sizes and large folio sizes (eg arrays of bhs on > the stack). Supporting bs == folio_size shouldn't be a problem. > I remember some patches from you trying to avoid the stack limitation while working with bh. Thanks for the clarification!