On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 04:50:09PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:

Le 10/06/2021 à 15:54, Chris Mason a écrit :

quoted

quoted

On Jun 10, 2021, at 1:23 AM, Christophe Leroy [off-list ref] wrote:

With a config having PAGE_SIZE set to 256K, BTRFS build fails
with the following message

include/linux/compiler_types.h:326:38: error: call to '__compiletime_assert_791' declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG_ON failed: (BTRFS_MAX_COMPRESSED % PAGE_SIZE) != 0

BTRFS_MAX_COMPRESSED being 128K, BTRFS cannot support platforms with
256K pages at the time being.

There are two platforms that can select 256K pages:
- hexagon
- powerpc

Disable BTRFS when 256K page size is selected.

We’ll have other subpage blocksize concerns with 256K pages, but this BTRFS_MAX_COMPRESSED #define is arbitrary.  It’s just trying to have an upper bound on the amount of memory we’ll need to uncompress a single page’s worth of random reads.

We could change it to max(PAGE_SIZE, 128K) or just bump to 256K.

But if 256K is problematic in other ways, is it worth bumping BTRFS_MAX_COMPRESSED to 256K ?

David, in below mail, said that 256K support would require deaper changes. So disabling BTRFS 
support seems the easiest solution for the time being, at least for Stable (I forgot the Fixes: tag 
and the CC: to stable).

On powerpc, 256k pages is a corner case, it requires customised binutils, so I don't think disabling 
BTRFS is a issue there. For hexagon I don't know.

That it blew up due to the max compressed size is a coincidence. We
could have explicit BUILD_BUG_ONs for page size or other constraints
derived from the page size like INLINE_EXTENT_BUFFER_PAGES.

And there's no such thing like "just bump BTRFS_MAX_COMPRESSED to 256K".
The constant is part of on-disk format for lzo and otherwise changing it
would impact performance so this would need proper evaluation.