On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 03:59:45AM +0000, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 05/21, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 11:57:48AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > > So let me get this straight.  This is a magic xattr interface which is
> > > not even persisted in the file system, but instead sets a 32-bit
> > > bitmask in the struct inode which disappears once the inode gets
> > > flushed from the inode stack.  And it uses a generic xattr name,
> > > "user.fadvise".
> > > 
> > > There's no way in *hell* any other file system is likely to adopt such
> > > a broken interface, so why didn't you just use an ioctl to set this
> > > magic f2fs-specific flag?
> > 
> > I mean, yes, this API is horrendous.  But it's just another example of
> > f2fs thinking it's somehow special and not just enabling large folios
> > like other filesystems do.  This hurts everyone, not just people who use
> > f2fs.
> 
> >From the production viewpoint, I raised a concern on setting large folio by
> default, since that exhausts lots of high-order pages, which were needed for
> essential system services and critical apps.

Random fears or actual data?


_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel

Reply via email to