On 05/20/2018 12:29 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 11:39:38PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 05/19/2018 10:50 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 08:20:30PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 05/19/2018 04:36 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
On 18 May 2018 at 03:22, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
The recent ext4 cache discussion would indicate that the block cache is a desired feature, yet hidden and not enabled most of the time. Enable the block cache by default since it provides significant block device access performance improvement and if there are some users who cannot enable it ie. due to size limitations, those should disable it explicitly in their board config.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut marex@denx.de Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Cc: Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com Cc: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com
drivers/block/Kconfig | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
I was hoping to get some feedback ?
So, as I was asking on IRC, can you show the code paths where this gets used outside of CONFIG_BLK and then really ext4/fat/btrfs as I do in my patch?
Can you summarize that discussion for everyone who was not on IRC at that point ?
So I posted https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/913266/ and it depends on BLK, as without BLK it does compile but isn't useful, but also isn't wholly discarded (due to the invalidate call in disk/part.c).
Maybe that is what needs fixing and then this patch can be applied ?
AFIACT from a quick read of the code, block cache is only useful on filesystems that reside on block devices. It won't help with "just" MMC reads for example. So we should only enable it by default in the case of filesystems that are usually on block devices being enabled.
I wonder if this not helping with raw block reads is fine or not. Thoughts ?
But I didn't dig through the code hard enough to see if it would be useful on say UBIFS or if I'm wrong about it not being in the code path of things like say NAND.
I don't see why this won't be useful on UBI/UBIFS . It is probably just not implemented yet.
But I also don't think just default y in all cases is right as that's adding non-trivial mounts of code on all of the platforms that don't / won't make use of it.
So it should be discarded if there are no users ?