From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
Cc: brauner@kernel.org, hch@lst.de, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
jack@suse.cz, cem@kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
dchinner@redhat.com, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ojaswin@linux.ibm.com,
ritesh.list@gmail.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
catherine.hoang@oracle.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7.1 14/14] xfs: allow sysadmins to specify a maximum atomic write limit at mount time
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 09:26:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250416162649.GJ25675@frogsfrogsfrogs> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <81f0fe3e-4c1a-497d-b20e-1f8d182ed208@oracle.com>
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 11:08:25AM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> On 15/04/2025 23:36, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>
> Thanks for this, but it still seems to be problematic for me.
>
> In my test, I have agsize=22400, and when I attempt to mount with
> atomic_write_max=8M, it passes when it shouldn't. It should not because
> max_pow_of_two_factor(22400) = 128, and 8MB > 128 FSB.
>
> How about these addition checks:
>
> > +
> > + if (new_max_bytes) {
> > + xfs_extlen_t max_write_fsbs =
> > + rounddown_pow_of_two(XFS_B_TO_FSB(mp, MAX_RW_COUNT));
> > + xfs_extlen_t max_group_fsbs =
> > + max(mp->m_groups[XG_TYPE_AG].blocks,
> > + mp->m_groups[XG_TYPE_RTG].blocks);
> > +
> > + ASSERT(max_write_fsbs <= U32_MAX);
>
> if (!is_power_of_2(new_max_bytes)) {
> xfs_warn(mp,
> "max atomic write size of %llu bytes is not a power-of-2",
> new_max_bytes);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
Long-term I'm not convinced that we really need to have all these power
of two checks because the software fallback can remap just about
anything, but for now I see no harm in doing this because
generic_atomic_write_valid enforces that property on the IO length.
> > +
> > + if (new_max_bytes % mp->m_sb.sb_blocksize > 0) {
> > + xfs_warn(mp,
> > + "max atomic write size of %llu bytes not aligned with fsblock",
> > + new_max_bytes);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (new_max_fsbs > max_write_fsbs) {
> > + xfs_warn(mp,
> > + "max atomic write size of %lluk cannot be larger than max write size %lluk",
> > + new_max_bytes >> 10,
> > + XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, max_write_fsbs) >> 10);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (new_max_fsbs > max_group_fsbs) {
> > + xfs_warn(mp,
> > + "max atomic write size of %lluk cannot be larger than allocation group size %lluk",
> > + new_max_bytes >> 10,
> > + XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, max_group_fsbs) >> 10);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
>
> if (new_max_fsbs > max_pow_of_two_factor(max_group_fsbs)) {
> xfs_warn(mp,
> "max atomic write size of %lluk not aligned with allocation group size
> %lluk",
> new_max_bytes >> 10,
> XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, max_group_fsbs) >> 10);
> return -EINVAL;
I think I'd rather clean up these bits:
if (mp->m_ddev_targp->bt_bdev_awu_min > 0)
max_agsize = max_pow_of_two_factor(mp->m_sb.sb_agblocks);
else
max_agsize = mp->m_ag_max_usable;
and
if (mp->m_rtdev_targp && mp->m_rtdev_targp->bt_bdev_awu_min > 0)
max_rgsize = max_pow_of_two_factor(rgs->blocks);
else
max_rgsize = rgs->blocks;
into a shared helper for xfs_compute_atomic_write_unit_max so that we
use the exact same logic in both places. But I agree with the general
direction.
--D
> }
>
> thanks,
> John
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-16 16:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-15 12:14 [PATCH v7 00/14] large atomic writes for xfs John Garry
2025-04-15 12:14 ` [PATCH v7 01/14] fs: add atomic write unit max opt to statx John Garry
2025-04-15 12:14 ` [PATCH v7 02/14] xfs: add helpers to compute log item overhead John Garry
2025-04-15 12:14 ` [PATCH v7 03/14] xfs: add helpers to compute transaction reservation for finishing intent items John Garry
2025-04-15 12:14 ` [PATCH v7 04/14] xfs: rename xfs_inode_can_atomicwrite() -> xfs_inode_can_hw_atomicwrite() John Garry
2025-04-15 12:14 ` [PATCH v7 05/14] xfs: allow block allocator to take an alignment hint John Garry
2025-04-15 12:14 ` [PATCH v7 06/14] xfs: refactor xfs_reflink_end_cow_extent() John Garry
2025-04-15 12:14 ` [PATCH v7 07/14] xfs: refine atomic write size check in xfs_file_write_iter() John Garry
2025-04-15 12:14 ` [PATCH v7 08/14] xfs: add xfs_atomic_write_cow_iomap_begin() John Garry
2025-04-15 12:14 ` [PATCH v7 09/14] xfs: add large atomic writes checks in xfs_direct_write_iomap_begin() John Garry
2025-04-15 17:34 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-15 17:46 ` John Garry
2025-04-15 12:14 ` [PATCH v7 10/14] xfs: commit CoW-based atomic writes atomically John Garry
2025-04-15 12:14 ` [PATCH v7 11/14] xfs: add xfs_file_dio_write_atomic() John Garry
2025-04-21 4:00 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-21 5:47 ` John Garry
2025-04-21 16:42 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-23 5:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-04-23 8:19 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-04-23 14:51 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-23 14:53 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-21 21:18 ` Luis Chamberlain
2025-04-22 6:08 ` John Garry
2025-04-23 5:18 ` Luis Chamberlain
2025-04-23 7:08 ` John Garry
2025-04-23 7:36 ` Luis Chamberlain
2025-04-23 5:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-04-23 7:02 ` John Garry
2025-04-15 12:14 ` [PATCH v7 12/14] xfs: add xfs_compute_atomic_write_unit_max() John Garry
2025-04-15 16:25 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-15 16:35 ` John Garry
2025-04-15 16:39 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-15 12:14 ` [PATCH v7 13/14] xfs: update atomic write limits John Garry
2025-04-15 16:26 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-15 12:14 ` [PATCH v7 14/14] xfs: allow sysadmins to specify a maximum atomic write limit at mount time John Garry
2025-04-15 15:35 ` Randy Dunlap
2025-04-15 16:55 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-15 22:36 ` [PATCH v7.1 " Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-16 10:08 ` John Garry
2025-04-16 16:26 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
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=20250416162649.GJ25675@frogsfrogsfrogs \
--to=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=catherine.hoang@oracle.com \
--cc=cem@kernel.org \
--cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=ojaswin@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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.