Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 Jan 2006 13:19:47 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] Fix problems on multi-TB filesystem and file |
| |
Andreas Dilger <adilger@clusterfs.com> wrote: > > On Jan 13, 2006 12:28 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > So now we're proposing to repeat the sector_t problem with a bunch of new > > fields. Fortunately we're less likely to be putting these particular > > fields into printk statements but I note that CIFS (at least) has a couple > > such statements and with your patch they're now generating warnings (and > > potential runtime bugs). > > > > On the other hand, for a fairly fat .config which has 17 filesystems in > > .vmlinux: > > > > text data bss dec hex filename > > 4633032 1011304 248288 5892624 59ea10 vmlinux CONFIG_LSF=y > > 4633680 1011304 248288 5893272 59ec98 vmlinux CONFIG_LSF=n > > > > It's probably less 0.5 kbytes for usual embedded .config. > > I just don't think the benefit of CONFIG_LSF outweighs its costs. > > We were originally going to use CONFIG_LBD, but there were some complaints > that "sector_t" isn't the right variable to use for this, even though they > are remarkably close. That would at least remove one config change. > > I don't think the cost is in the vmlinux itself, but rather that having a > long long for i_blocks is overkill for any but the very largest systems > (Lustre has been running fine w/o this, at the expense of some accuracy > for the i_blocks count on many-TB files). Growing struct inode for these > 0.0000001% of systems is probably harmful for small systems, given how > many inodes are used in a system.
I'd expect that rh and suse and others will turn on the >2TB option, so that's most systems.
> Two options exist IMHO: > - remove the new CONFIG_* parameters and stick with CONFIG_LBD (this could > still use a separate type from sector_t if desired) to reduce the amount > of testing combinations needed > - make the new CONFIG_* default to on and allow it to be disabled with > CONFIG_BASE_SMALL
Well yes, but we still have the printk problem.
CONFIG_LFS would become a specialised option for embedded systems and for the minority of people who self-compile kernels. I just don't think that's worth the maintainability hassle.
Ho hum. But then, people don't printk these fields as much. I spose we could live with your option 1). And we need to find all those places (like CIFS) which are presently trying to print a blkcnt_t and add the %llu and the typecast. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |