Hello Minchan, On (12/16/15 10:01), Minchan Kim wrote: > Hello Sergey, > > Sorry for the late response. I am in long vavacation now but today, > I get small time to sit down on computer. :)
Have a good one! > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 09:38:55PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I've been thinking about this for some time, but didn't have a chance > > to properly investigate so far. My question is: why do we even bother > > with partial IO in zram? > > It was done before I involved zram actively so I should spend a time > to search the reason. Thanks a lot! I appreciate this. I was about to do the same but still a bit too busy. > Firstly, author was Jerome. > http://lists.openwall.net/linux-kernel/2011/06/10/318 > > And Nitin wanted to increase logical block size 64K instead of > making complex part by partial I/O. > http://lists.openwall.net/linux-kernel/2011/06/10/402 > > And Jeff and Martin said there is no problem to increase > logical_block_size from unsigned short if people are aware of > the implications bigger blocks have on the filesystems they put on top. > > http://lists.openwall.net/linux-kernel/2011/06/14/289 > http://lists.openwall.net/linux-kernel/2011/06/14/324 > > Jerome finally found severe problem which FAT fs are unable to > cope with 64K logical blocks at least. > http://lists.openwall.net/linux-kernel/2011/07/01/196 > > That's why Nitin decided to suppport partial IO in zram. > And I think it does make sense. uhhh... ok, I see. Thanks. -ss -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
