All of
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Hildenbrand <>
To: David Howells <>,,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Johannes Weiner <>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <>,
	Theodore Ts'o <>,
	Christoph Hellwig <>,
	Alexander Viro <>,
	Vlastimil Babka <>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <>,
	"Darrick J. Wong" <>,
	Dan Williams <>,
	Jeff Layton <>,,,
Subject: Re: Folios: Can we resolve this please?
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2021 12:18:04 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 01.09.21 00:15, David Howells wrote:
> Hi Linus, Andrew, Johannes,
> Can we come to a quick resolution on folios?  I'd really like this to be
> solved in this merge window if at all possible as I (and others) have stuff
> that will depend on and will conflict with Willy's folio work.  It would be
> great to get this sorted one way or another.
> As I see it, there are three issues, I think, and I think they kind of go like
> this:
>   (1) Johannes wants to get away from pages being used as the unit of memory
>       currency and thinks that folios aren't helpful in this regard[1].  There
>       seems to be some disagreement about where this is heading.
>   (2) Linus isn't entirely keen on Willy's approach[2], with a bottom up
>       approach hiding the page objects behind a new type from the pov of the
>       filesystem, but would rather see the page struct stay the main API type
>       and the changes be hidden transparently inside of that.
>       I think from what Linus said, he may be in favour (if that's not too
>       strong a word) of using a new type to make sure we don't miss the
>       necessary changes[3].
>   (3) Linus isn't in favour of the name 'folio' for the new type[2].  Various
>       names have been bandied around and Linus seems okay with "pageset"[4],
>       though it's already in minor(-ish) use[5][6].  Willy has an alternate
>       patchset with "folio" changed to "pageset"[7].
> With regard to (1), I think the folio concept could be used in future to hide
> at least some of the paginess from filesystems.
> With regard to (2), I think a top-down approach won't work until and unless we
> wrap all accesses to struct page by filesystems (and device drivers) in
> wrapper functions - we need to stop filesystems fiddling with page internals
> because what page internals may mean may change.
> With regard to (3), I'm personally fine with the name "folio", as are other
> people[8][9][10][11], but I could also live with a conversion to "pageset".
> Is it possible to take the folios patchset as-is and just live with the name,
> or just take Willy's rename-job (although it hasn't had linux-next soak time
> yet)?  Or is the approach fundamentally flawed and in need of redoing?

Whatever we do, it would be great to get it out of -next one way (merge) 
or the other (drop) ASAP, as it's a lot of code churn, affecting various 

But merging it in a (for some people) suboptimal state just to get it 
out of -next might not necessarily be what we want.


David / dhildenb

  reply	other threads:[~2021-09-01 10:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-31 22:15 Folios: Can we resolve this please? David Howells
2021-09-01 10:18 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2021-09-01 10:18 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-09-01 11:42 ` Christian Brauner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.