Re: [PATCH] fs: btrfs: Disable BTRFS on platforms having 256K pages
On 2021/6/10 下午1:23, Christophe Leroy wrote: With a config having PAGE_SIZE set to 256K, BTRFS build fails with the following message include/linux/compiler_types.h:326:38: error: call to '__compiletime_assert_791' declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG_ON failed: (BTRFS_MAX_COMPRESSED % PAGE_SIZE) != 0 BTRFS_MAX_COMPRESSED being 128K, BTRFS cannot support platforms with 256K pages at the time being. There are two platforms that can select 256K pages: - hexagon - powerpc Disable BTRFS when 256K page size is selected. Reported-by: kernel test robot Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy --- fs/btrfs/Kconfig | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/Kconfig b/fs/btrfs/Kconfig index 68b95ad82126..520a0f6a7d9e 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/Kconfig +++ b/fs/btrfs/Kconfig @@ -18,6 +18,8 @@ config BTRFS_FS select RAID6_PQ select XOR_BLOCKS select SRCU + depends on !PPC_256K_PAGES # powerpc + depends on !PAGE_SIZE_256KB # hexagon I'm OK to disable page size other than 4K, 16K, 32K, 64K for now. Although for other reasons. Not only for the BUILD_BUG_ON(), but for the fact that btrfs only support 4K, 16K, 32K, 64K sectorsize, and requires PAGE_SIZE == sectorsize. Although we're adding subpage support, the subpage support only comes with 4K sectorsize on 64K page size. Until variable length version is introduced, 256K/128K page size won't be support. Thus I'm fine to disable BTRFS for any arch outside of the supported page sizes for now. Thanks, Qu help Btrfs is a general purpose copy-on-write filesystem with extents,
Re: [PATCH] fs: btrfs: Disable BTRFS on platforms having 256K pages
Hi Christophe, I'm recently enhancing the subpage support for btrfs, and my current branch should solve the problem for btrfs to support larger page sizes. But unfortunately my current test environment can only provide page size with 64K or 4K, no 16K or 128K/256K support. Mind to test my new branch on 128K page size systems? (256K page size support is still lacking though, which will be addressed in the future) https://github.com/adam900710/linux/tree/metadata_subpage_switch Thanks, Qu On 2021/6/10 13:23, Christophe Leroy wrote: With a config having PAGE_SIZE set to 256K, BTRFS build fails with the following message include/linux/compiler_types.h:326:38: error: call to '__compiletime_assert_791' declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG_ON failed: (BTRFS_MAX_COMPRESSED % PAGE_SIZE) != 0 BTRFS_MAX_COMPRESSED being 128K, BTRFS cannot support platforms with 256K pages at the time being. There are two platforms that can select 256K pages: - hexagon - powerpc Disable BTRFS when 256K page size is selected. Reported-by: kernel test robot Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy --- fs/btrfs/Kconfig | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/Kconfig b/fs/btrfs/Kconfig index 68b95ad82126..520a0f6a7d9e 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/Kconfig +++ b/fs/btrfs/Kconfig @@ -18,6 +18,8 @@ config BTRFS_FS select RAID6_PQ select XOR_BLOCKS select SRCU + depends on !PPC_256K_PAGES # powerpc + depends on !PAGE_SIZE_256KB # hexagon help Btrfs is a general purpose copy-on-write filesystem with extents,
Re: [PATCH] fs: btrfs: Disable BTRFS on platforms having 256K pages
On 2022/1/7 00:31, Neal Gompa wrote: On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 7:05 AM Qu Wenruo wrote: Hi Christophe, I'm recently enhancing the subpage support for btrfs, and my current branch should solve the problem for btrfs to support larger page sizes. But unfortunately my current test environment can only provide page size with 64K or 4K, no 16K or 128K/256K support. Mind to test my new branch on 128K page size systems? (256K page size support is still lacking though, which will be addressed in the future) https://github.com/adam900710/linux/tree/metadata_subpage_switch The Linux Asahi folks have a 16K page environment (M1 Macs)... Su Yue kindly helped me testing 16K page size, and it's pretty OK there. So I'm not that concerned. It's 128K page size that I'm a little concerned, and I have not machine supporting that large page size to do the test. Thanks, Qu Hector, could you look at it too?
