On 2024/12/7 21:53, Ian Kent wrote:
On 7/12/24 15:25, Gao Xiang wrote:
Hi Ian,
On 2024/12/7 09:09, Ian Kent wrote:
On 7/12/24 04:21, Gao Xiang wrote:
On 2024/12/7 04:10, Colin Walters wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2024, at 2:46 PM, Gao Xiang wrote:
Did you try upstream kernels? It's already supported upstream
since Linux 6.4.
Sorry, my bad. (It should have occurred to me to check, but this one popped
back up on my radar when I'm trying to do several other things at the same
time).
Anyways looks like the fix specifically was
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=d3c4bdcc756e60b95365c66ff58844ce75d1c8f8
?
Yes, although it has been supported for nearly two
years, but there are still many dependencies
against RHEL 9 kernel (5.14) codebase.
I think RHEL 9 is lacking of many features.
Yes, but I'll try to argue for refresh for 9.6. Thanks!
(Just tried to cherry pick that one myself, some conflicts but looks tractable)
Actually, the PR below has been delayed for
months:
https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/src/kernel/centos-stream-9/-/merge_requests/4123
Indeed, yes.
I deferred it because I thought back porting the idmap type changes that came
after
5.14 was more important and the above MR was conflicting with them.
That was a large change and was difficult to get merged but it's done now.
Thanks for the reply!
Yeah, I thought it seems to be delayed due to some
other high priority stuffs, but keep the codebase
in line with Linux v6.1 or v6.6 is helpful to
container use cases since I'm mainly working on
this area these years, such as:
- large folios for better read performance;
- subpage block support (>= 512-byte blocks);
- FSDAX for page cache sharing into VMs;
- advanced compression features;
- and more.
I understand but right now I just want to get that original merge request
merged.
Although, now I'm back to it, and we have a request for something specific, it
may
go further than 5.19. Equally, back porting feature requests will be much more
straight
forward with our RHEL-9 erofs at 5.19 as a basis. We'll need to wait and see
what time
we have available and what the magnitude of the changes are for the request.
Whether
we have tests available for user space and kernel space is a factor as well
because
everything we support needs QE test coverage if at all possible.
Totally understood, and I also agree it'd better to backport to
5.19 as a basis first.
We also need to focus on the fact that RHEL-10 is in need of work on erofs and
is a
priority atm. I need to spend time there too.
And I should add I have been trying to find time to get an autofs release out
that needs
to be back ported to both RHEL-9 and RHEL-10 (and I'm running out of time!) and
a tricky
kernel fix to the autofs module as well, and that's not all I have going on.
Point being, please understand it's not as simple as just doing a back port,
there is due
process to follow which also takes time.
Yeah.
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
Ian
