On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 08:47:05AM +0800, Nanzhe Zhao wrote:
> Knowing that the F2FS community is currently heavily invested in the
> folio support effort, I wanted to also bring up some observations and
> questions regarding folio support in F2FS garbage collection.
> Specifically, I'm concerned a
Thank you very much for your prompt and insightful reply! I truly
appreciate you taking the time to address my question so quickly.
I understand now. It seems the kernel's flusher threads are indeed
sufficient for handling dirty page writeback effectively. And I
realize that they ultimately call `
Dear Mr.Mattew:
Thanks for your reply!
>The fundamental problem is that f2fs has no per-block data structure. In
> ext4, that's struct buffer_head. For XFS, it's struct iomap_folio_state.
> For btrfs, it's struct btrfs_subpage and for bcachefs, it's struct
> bch_folio.
Yes,now I'm fully aware of
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 10:06:55AM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 08:47:05AM +0800, Nanzhe Zhao wrote:
> > Knowing that the F2FS community is currently heavily invested in the
> > folio support effort, I wanted to also bring up some observations and
> > questions regarding f
On Sun, Mar 23, 2025 at 07:34:59PM +0800, Nanzhe Zhao wrote:
> I've recently been studying your patch 'f2fs: Remove uses of
> writepage'. I understand the rationale behind it, especially with the
> page cache and file I/O increasingly adopting folios in place of the
> traditional page structure. T
Dear Mr.Matthew
I hope this email finds you well.
I've recently been studying your patch 'f2fs: Remove uses of
writepage'. I understand the rationale behind it, especially with the
page cache and file I/O increasingly adopting folios in place of the
traditional page structure. This trend indeed
