On 9/18/23 20:15, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 10:12:04AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:51:12PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 02:32:44PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
However, an issue is that disabling CONFIG_BUFFER_HEAD in practice is not viable
for many Linux distributions since it also means disabling support for most
filesystems other than btrfs and XFS. So we either support larger order folios
on buffer-heads, or we draw up a solution to enable co-existence. Since at LSFMM
2023 it was decided we would not support larger order folios on buffer-heads,
Um, I didn't agree to that.
Coverage on sunsetting buffer-heads talk by LWN:
https://lwn.net/Articles/931809/
"the apparent conclusion from the session: the buffer-head layer will be
converted to use folios internally while minimizing changes visible to
the filesystems using it. Only single-page folios will be used within
this new buffer-head layer. Any other desires, he said, can be addressed
later after this problem has been solved."
Other people said that. Not me. I said it was fine for single
buffer_head per folio.
And my patchset proves that to be the case.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev, Andrew
Myers, Andrew McDonald, Martje Boudien Moerman
