From: Pankaj Raghav <pankaj.raghav@linux.dev>
To: John Garry <john.garry@linux.dev>,
Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>,
cem@kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
gost.dev@samsung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: don't limit software atomic writes by the group alignment
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2026 09:17:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ffd48d49-c4f6-4fc3-88a5-0adb11d0d6b9@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41749fa7-dcfa-46f0-af0f-ed3fa5f39f15@linux.dev>
On 9/25/2026 1:44 PM, John Garry wrote:
> On 9/25/26 11:36, Pankaj Raghav wrote:
> > xfs_calc_group_awu_max() clamps the atomic write unit maximum to the
> > greatest power-of-two factor of the group size when the device advertises
> > atomic writes, so that allocations can be made naturally aligned for
> > REQ_ATOMIC. But that value is the software limit: it is only used when
> > reflink is enabled, and out of place writes through the COW fork have no
> > alignment requirement.
>
> We have mkfs atomic write options for selecting atomic write limits - you have
> tried that, right?
>
Hmm, I did not try that but I restricted the agsize to a power of 2 value to
workaround the limitation.
Are you talking about this option: max_atomic_write?
In any case, with default options the atomic values we are exposing is not
correct at the moment.
>>
>> A filesystem on a > 4TB device that advertises 16k atomic writes then reports
>> an atomic write unit maximum of a single fsblock and an optimal maximum of 0,
>> and rejects any larger RWF_ATOMIC write. That is worse than the same filesystem
>> on a device with no atomic write support at all.
>>
>> Compute the software limit from the group size alone, and apply the
>> alignment constraint in xfs_get_atomic_write_max_opt() instead, which is
>> what reports the size that can be offloaded to the hardware.
>>
>> Results on a 8TB device with 16k hardware atomic support with 4k
>> blocksize:
>>
>> Before patches:
>> /media/test/hello.txt:
>> stx_atomic_write_unit_min: 4096
>> stx_atomic_write_unit_max: 4096
>> stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt: 0
>> stx_atomic_write_segments_max: 1
>>
>> After patches:
>> /media/test/hello.txt:
>> stx_atomic_write_unit_min: 4096
>> stx_atomic_write_unit_max: 2097152
>
> Here the AG size may not be a multiple of 2097152B, right? If so, when we try to
> naturally align the allocation for a CoW write, even if the AG blocks are
> naturally aligned (per AG), the disk blocks may not be naturnally aligned - is
> this correct? For HW-based atomic writes, we want naturally aligned disk blocks.
>
Correct.
Just to give more context:
Trace of calc_atomic_write_unit_max:
mount-696 [010] 449.230543: xfs_calc_atomic_write_unit_max: dev 259:0 ag
max_write 262144 max_ioend 512 max_gsize 134217728 awu_max 512
2097152 comes from awumax being 512 fsblocks.
root@debian:~# xfs_info /dev/nvme0n1
meta-data=/dev/nvme0n1 isize=512 agcount=8, agsize=268435455 blks
= sectsz=4096 attr=2, projid32bit=1
= crc=1 finobt=1, sparse=1, rmapbt=0
= reflink=1 bigtime=1 inobtcount=1 nrext64=0
data = bsize=4096 blocks=2147483640, imaxpct=5
= sunit=0 swidth=0 blks
naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0, ftype=1
log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=521728, version=2
= sectsz=4096 sunit=1 blks, lazy-count=1
realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0
>> stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt: 4096
>> stx_atomic_write_segments_max: 1
>>
>> Results on a 8TB device with 16k hardware atomic support with 16k
>> blocksize:
>>
>> Before patches:
>> /media/test/hello.txt:
>> stx_atomic_write_unit_min: 16384
>> stx_atomic_write_unit_max: 16384
>> stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt: 0
>> stx_atomic_write_segments_max: 1
>>
>> After patches:
>> /media/test/hello.txt:
>> stx_atomic_write_unit_min: 16384
>> stx_atomic_write_unit_max: 33554432
>> stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt: 16384
>> stx_atomic_write_segments_max: 1
>>
--
Pankaj
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-29 7:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-25 10:36 [PATCH] xfs: don't limit software atomic writes by the group alignment Pankaj Raghav
2026-09-25 11:44 ` John Garry
2026-09-29 7:17 ` Pankaj Raghav [this message]
2026-09-29 14:47 ` John Garry
2026-09-30 5:10 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2026-09-30 8:42 ` John Garry
2026-09-30 12:27 ` Pankaj Raghav
2026-09-30 12:48 ` John Garry
2026-10-01 16:30 ` Pankaj Raghav
2026-10-02 8:45 ` John Garry
2026-10-02 11:24 ` Pankaj Raghav
2026-09-29 16:40 ` Darrick J. Wong
2026-09-29 20:42 ` Darrick J. Wong
2026-09-30 8:48 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2026-10-07 17:43 ` Darrick J. Wong
2026-10-05 11:02 ` John Garry
2026-10-05 11:02 ` John Garry
2026-10-05 16:24 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2026-10-06 7:06 ` John Garry
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=ffd48d49-c4f6-4fc3-88a5-0adb11d0d6b9@linux.dev \
--to=pankaj.raghav@linux.dev \
--cc=cem@kernel.org \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=gost.dev@samsung.com \
--cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=john.garry@linux.dev \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=p.raghav@samsung.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.