在 2025/7/21 19:55, Jan Kara 写道:
On Mon 21-07-25 11:14:02, Gao Xiang wrote:
Hi Barry,
On 2025/7/21 09:02, Barry Song wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 8:28 AM Gao Xiang wrote:
[...]
Given the difficulty of allocating large folios, it's always a good
idea to have order-0 as a fallback. While I
在 2025/7/16 10:46, Gao Xiang 写道:
...
There's some discrepancy between filesystems whether you need scratch
space for decompression. Some filesystems read the compressed data into
the pagecache and decompress in-place, while other filesystems read the
compressed data into scratch pages and
在 2025/7/16 06:10, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
I've started looking at how the page cache can help filesystems handle
compressed data better. Feedback would be appreciated! I'll probably
say a few things which are obvious to anyone who knows how compressed
files work, but I'm trying to be explicit abo
在 2025/7/10 18:10, Christian Brauner 写道:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 01:20:50PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 12:20:00PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
On Mon 07-07-25 17:45:32, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 08:52:47AM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote:
在 2025/7/8 08:32, D
在 2025/7/9 10:05, Kent Overstreet 写道:
On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 08:37:05AM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote:
在 2025/7/9 08:29, Dave Chinner 写道:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 09:55:14AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 05:45:32PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 08:
在 2025/7/9 08:29, Dave Chinner 写道:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 09:55:14AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 05:45:32PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 08:52:47AM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote:
在 2025/7/8 08:32, Dave Chinner 写道:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 10:1
在 2025/7/9 05:50, Darrick J. Wong 写道:
[...]
Well, I'd also say just go for own fs_holder_ops if it was not for the
awkward "get super from bdev" step. As Christian wrote we've encapsulated
that in fs/super.c and bdev_super_lock() in particular but the calling
conventions for the fs_holder_ops a
在 2025/7/8 14:35, Dave Chinner 写道:
[...]
Not really worthy if we only want a single different behavior.
This is the *3rd* different behaviour for ->mark_dead. We
have the generic behaviour, the bcachefs behaviour, and now the
btrfs behaviour (whatever that may be).
Then why not merging the
在 2025/7/8 11:39, Qu Wenruo 写道:
在 2025/7/8 10:15, Darrick J. Wong 写道:
[...]
I do not think it's the correct way to go, especially when there is
already
fs_holder_ops.
We're always going towards a more generic solution, other than
letting the
individual fs to do the same thing slightly
在 2025/7/8 10:15, Darrick J. Wong 写道:
[...]
I do not think it's the correct way to go, especially when there is already
fs_holder_ops.
We're always going towards a more generic solution, other than letting the
individual fs to do the same thing slightly differently.
On second thought -- it'
在 2025/7/8 08:32, Dave Chinner 写道:
On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 10:12:29AM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Currently all the filesystems implementing the
super_opearations::shutdown() callback can not afford losing a device.
Thus fs_bdev_mark_dead() will just call the shutdown() callback for the
involved
Currently all the filesystems implementing the
super_opearations::shutdown() callback can not afford losing a device.
Thus fs_bdev_mark_dead() will just call the shutdown() callback for the
involved filesystem.
But it will no longer be the case, with multi-device filesystems like
btrfs and bcache
Currently all the filesystems implementing the
super_opearations::shutdown() call back can not afford losing a device.
Thus fs_bdev_mark_dead() will just call the shutdown() callback for the
involved filesystem.
But it will no longer be the case, with multi-device filesystems like
btrfs and bcach
在 2025/7/1 18:11, Christian Brauner 写道:
On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 04:05:03PM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote:
在 2025/7/1 15:44, Christoph Hellwig 写道:
On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 03:02:34PM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote:
To allow those multi-device filesystems to be integrated to use
fs_holder_ops:
- Rename shu
在 2025/7/1 15:44, Christoph Hellwig 写道:
On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 03:02:34PM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote:
To allow those multi-device filesystems to be integrated to use
fs_holder_ops:
- Rename shutdown() call back to remove_bdev()
To better describe when the call back is called.
What is rename
Currently all the filesystems implementing the
super_opearations::shutdown() call back can not afford losing a device.
Thus fs_bdev_mark_dead() will just call the shutdown() callback for the
involved filesystem.
But it will no longer be the case, with multi-device filesystems like
btrfs and bcach
在 2025/3/3 15:22, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
Adding Jens to the cc. As you well know, he added this code, so I'm
mystified why you didn't cc him. Also adding linux-fsdevel (I presume
this was a mistake and you inadvertently cc'd f2fs-devel instead.)
On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 10:34:26AM +1030, Qu Wenru
Hi,
[SPINLOCK AND END WRITEBACK]
Although folio_end_writeback() can be called in an interruption context
(by the in_task() check), surprisingly it may not be suitable to be
called inside a spinlock (in task context):
For example the following call chain can lead to sleep:
spin_lock()
folio_end
在 2024/8/24 01:08, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 11:43:41AM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote:
在 2024/8/23 07:55, Qu Wenruo 写道:
在 2024/8/22 21:37, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 08:28:09PM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote:
But what will happen if some writes happened to that larger foli
在 2024/8/23 07:55, Qu Wenruo 写道:
在 2024/8/22 21:37, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 08:28:09PM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote:
在 2024/8/22 12:35, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
- while (cur < page_start + PAGE_SIZE) {
+ while (cur < folio_start + PAGE_SIZE) {
Presumably we want to support l
在 2024/8/22 21:37, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 08:28:09PM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote:
在 2024/8/22 12:35, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
- while (cur < page_start + PAGE_SIZE) {
+ while (cur < folio_start + PAGE_SIZE) {
Presumably we want to support large folios in btrfs at some p
在 2024/8/22 12:35, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 09:37:02AM +0800, Li Zetao wrote:
static struct extent_buffer *get_next_extent_buffer(
- const struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, struct page *page, u64
bytenr)
+ const struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, struc
在 2024/8/22 12:35, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 09:37:02AM +0800, Li Zetao wrote:
static struct extent_buffer *get_next_extent_buffer(
- const struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, struct page *page, u64
bytenr)
+ const struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, struc
On 2022/10/14 16:48, Hrutvik Kanabar wrote:
From: Hrutvik Kanabar
When `DISABLE_FS_CSUM_VERIFICATION` is enabled, bypass checksum
verification.
Signed-off-by: Hrutvik Kanabar
I always want more fuzz for btrfs, so overall this is pretty good.
But there are some comments related to free s
24 matches
Mail list logo
