Re: [PATCH 17/21] fs: xfs: iomap atomic write support

Christoph Hellwig
2023-11-28T13:56:25Z

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 08:56:37AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> Are you suggesting some sort of hybrid between the atomic write series you
> had a few years ago and this solution?

Very roughly, yes.

> To me that would be continuing with the following:
> - per-IO RWF_ATOMIC (and not O_ATOMIC semantics of nothing is written until
> some data sync)

Yes.

> - writes must be a power-of-two and at a naturally-aligned offset

Where offset is offset in the file? It would not require it. You
probably want to do it for optimal performance, but requiring it
feeels rather limited.

> - relying on atomic write HW support always

And I think that's where we have different opinions. I think the hw
offload is a nice optimization and we should use it wherever we can.
But building the entire userspace API around it feels like a mistake.

> BTW, we also have rtvol support which does not use forcealign as it already
> can guarantee alignment, but still does rely on the same principle of
> requiring alignment - would you want CoW support there also?

Upstream doesn't have out of place write support for the RT subvolume
yet. But Darrick has a series for it and we're actively working on
upstreaming it.