All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] virtio-blk physical block size
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 13:38:51 +1030	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201001041338.52621.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1262018363-15871-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:09:23 am Avi Kivity wrote:
> This patch adds a physical block size attribute to virtio disks,
> corresponding to /sys/devices/.../physical_block_size.  It is defined as
> the request alignment which will not trigger RMW cycles.  This can be
> important for modern disks which use 4K physical sectors (though they
> still support 512 logical sectors), and for file-backed disk images (which
> have both the underlying filesystem block size and their own allocation
> granularity to consider).
> 
> Installers use this to align partitions to physical block boundaries.
> 
> Note the spec already defined blk_size as the performance rather than
> minimum alignment.  However the driver interpreted this as the logical
> block size, so I updated the spec to match the driver assuming the driver
> predates the spec and that this is an error.

I thought this was what I was doing, but I have shown over and over that
I have no idea about block devices.

Our current driver treats BLK_SIZE as the logical and physical size (see
blk_queue_logical_block_size).

I have no idea what "logical" vs. "physical" actually means.  Anyone?  Most
importantly, is it some Linux-internal difference or a real I/O-visible
distinction?

Rusty.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v2] virtio-blk physical block size
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 13:38:51 +1030	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201001041338.52621.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1262018363-15871-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com>

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:09:23 am Avi Kivity wrote:
> This patch adds a physical block size attribute to virtio disks,
> corresponding to /sys/devices/.../physical_block_size.  It is defined as
> the request alignment which will not trigger RMW cycles.  This can be
> important for modern disks which use 4K physical sectors (though they
> still support 512 logical sectors), and for file-backed disk images (which
> have both the underlying filesystem block size and their own allocation
> granularity to consider).
> 
> Installers use this to align partitions to physical block boundaries.
> 
> Note the spec already defined blk_size as the performance rather than
> minimum alignment.  However the driver interpreted this as the logical
> block size, so I updated the spec to match the driver assuming the driver
> predates the spec and that this is an error.

I thought this was what I was doing, but I have shown over and over that
I have no idea about block devices.

Our current driver treats BLK_SIZE as the logical and physical size (see
blk_queue_logical_block_size).

I have no idea what "logical" vs. "physical" actually means.  Anyone?  Most
importantly, is it some Linux-internal difference or a real I/O-visible
distinction?

Rusty.

  reply	other threads:[~2010-01-04  3:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-12-28 16:39 [PATCH v2] virtio-blk physical block size Avi Kivity
2010-01-04  3:08 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
2010-01-04  3:08   ` [Qemu-devel] " Rusty Russell
2010-01-04  7:02   ` Avi Kivity
2010-01-04  7:02   ` Avi Kivity
2010-01-04  7:02     ` [Qemu-devel] " Avi Kivity
2010-01-05 20:18     ` Jamie Lokier
2010-01-05 20:18     ` Jamie Lokier
2010-01-04  8:30   ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-04  8:30     ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-05 12:56     ` Rusty Russell
2010-01-05 12:56     ` Rusty Russell
2010-01-05 12:56       ` Rusty Russell
2010-01-05 12:58       ` Avi Kivity
2010-01-05 12:58       ` Avi Kivity
2010-01-05 12:58         ` Avi Kivity
2010-01-05 20:16         ` Jamie Lokier
2010-01-05 20:16           ` Jamie Lokier
2010-01-08 15:40           ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-08 15:40             ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-10 12:35             ` Avi Kivity
2010-01-10 12:35             ` Avi Kivity
2010-01-10 12:35               ` Avi Kivity
2010-01-08 15:40           ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-05 20:16         ` Jamie Lokier
2010-01-04  8:30   ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-01-04  3:08 ` Rusty Russell
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-12-28 16:39 Avi Kivity

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=201001041338.52621.rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --to=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --cc=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.