All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	"James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com"
	<James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: I/O topology fixes for big physical block size
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:57:41 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100928205741.GA22257@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100928141545.GA21587@redhat.com>

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:15:45AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> Actually, -F allows one to override fs blocksize < physical_block_size.
> 
> In this instance we have the following:
> # cat /sys/block/dm-2/queue/physical_block_size 
> 1048576
> # cat /sys/block/dm-2/queue/logical_block_size 
> 512
>  
> > Should we change something?
> 
> Unclear.  I could see maybe automatically capping the fs block size at
> 4096 if physical_block_size is larger and is a multiple of 4096?

Can we decide soon what the right thing should be?  I'm about to
release e2fsrogs 1.41.13, and if I should put in some sanity checking
code so mke2fs does something sane when it sees a 1M physical block
size, I can do that.

Or if the kernel is going to do that, it's fine too....

      	  	    	     	      	   - Ted

  reply	other threads:[~2010-09-28 20:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-09-27 16:41 I/O topology fixes for big physical block size Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 16:41 ` [PATCH 1/2] block: Ensure physical block size is unsigned int Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 17:40   ` Mike Snitzer
2010-10-08  5:15     ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-10-13 19:12       ` Mike Snitzer
2010-10-13 19:15         ` Jens Axboe
2010-09-27 16:41 ` [PATCH 2/2] sd: Fix overflow with big physical blocks Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 17:42   ` Mike Snitzer
2010-09-27 18:13   ` [PATCH] block: eliminate potential for infinite loop in blkdev_issue_discard Mike Snitzer
2010-10-14 21:37     ` Mike Snitzer
2010-10-15 11:05       ` Jens Axboe
2010-09-27 16:54 ` I/O topology fixes for big physical block size Jens Axboe
2010-09-27 17:20   ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 22:21     ` Jens Axboe
2010-09-27 22:36       ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 23:15         ` Mike Snitzer
2010-09-28  4:30           ` Jens Axboe
2010-09-28  5:20             ` Eric Sandeen
2010-09-28 14:15               ` Mike Snitzer
2010-09-28 20:57                 ` Ted Ts'o [this message]
2010-09-28 21:24                   ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-28 21:24                     ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-28 21:36                     ` Eric Sandeen
2010-09-30 16:30                       ` Ted Ts'o
2010-09-30 17:07                         ` Eric Sandeen
2010-09-30 17:07                         ` Eric Sandeen
2010-09-30 17:33                           ` Mike Snitzer
2010-10-01 14:24                             ` Ted Ts'o
2010-10-01 22:19                               ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-10-01 22:19                                 ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-10-02  2:31                                 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-10-02  3:03                                   ` Daniel Taylor
2010-10-04 19:49                                   ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-10-04 19:49                                     ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 17:23   ` Mike Snitzer
2010-09-27 21:58     ` James Bottomley
2010-09-27 22:03       ` Jens Axboe
2010-09-27 22:14         ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 22:24           ` Jens Axboe
2010-09-28 18:48             ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-28 18:54               ` Mike Snitzer

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=20100928205741.GA22257@thunk.org \
    --to=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
    --cc=jaxboe@fusionio.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
    --cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
    /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.