On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 04:04:45PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 07:22:18PM +0530, Anuj gupta wrote: > > > A mount option is about the worst possible interface for behavior > > > that depends on file system implementation and possibly hardware > > > chacteristics. This needs to be set by the file systems, possibly > > > using generic helpers using hardware information. > > > > Right, that makes sense. Instead of using a mount option, we can > > introduce generic helpers to initialize multiple writeback contexts > > based on underlying hardware characteristics — e.g., number of CPUs or > > NUMA topology. Filesystems like XFS and EXT4 can then call these helpers > > during mount to opt into parallel writeback in a controlled way. > > Yes. A mount option might still be useful to override this default, > but it should not be needed for the normal use case. .. actually a sysfs file on the bdi is probably the better interface for the override than a mount option.
