lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] blk: increase logical_block_size to unsigned int


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sergey Senozhatsky" <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
> To: "Minchan Kim" <minchan@kernel.org>
> Cc: "Jens Axboe" <axboe@kernel.dk>, "Hyeoncheol Lee" <cheol.lee@lge.com>, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, "Sergey Senozhatsky"
> <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>, "Robert Jennings" <rcj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Jerome Marchand" <jmarchan@redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 3:33:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [RFC] blk: increase logical_block_size to unsigned int
>
> On (01/09/17 14:04), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Mostly, zram is used as swap system on embedded world so it want to do IO
> > as PAGE_SIZE aligned/size IO unit. For that, one of the problem was
> > blk_queue_logical_block_size(zram->disk->queue, PAGE_SIZE) made overflow
> > in *64K page system* so [1] changed it to constant 4096.
> > Since that, partial IO can happen so zram should handle it which makes zram
> > complicated[2].
> >
>
> I thought that zram partial IO support is there because some file
> systems cannot cope with large logical_block_size. like FAT, for
> example. am I wrong?

Yes indeed. When we discussed the patch adding the partial I/O, increasing the
size of logical_block was considered. The reason we didn't go the easy path was
that not all block users could handle 64k blocks. FAT is one of them.

Jerome

>
> -ss
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-01-09 16:12    [W:0.059 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site