From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
brauner@kernel.org, djwong@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, Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>,
Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 11/14] xfs: add xfs_file_dio_write_atomic()
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 22:18:39 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aAh4L9crlnEf3uuJ@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <69302bf1-78b4-4b95-8e9b-df56dd1091c0@oracle.com>
On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 07:08:32AM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> On 21/04/2025 22:18, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > /*
> > > + * The retry mechanism is based on the ->iomap_begin method returning
> > > + * -ENOPROTOOPT, which would be when the REQ_ATOMIC-based write is not
> > > + * possible. The REQ_ATOMIC-based method typically not be possible if
> > > + * the write spans multiple extents or the disk blocks are misaligned.
> > > + */
> > > + if (ret == -ENOPROTOOPT && dops == &xfs_direct_write_iomap_ops) {
> > Based on feedback from LSFMM, due to the performance variaibility this
> > can introduce, it sounded like some folks would like to opt-in to not
> > have a software fallback and just require an error out.
> > > Could an option be added to not allow the software fallback?
>
> I still don't see the use in this.
Its not the use, its the concern for underdeterminism in performance.
> So consider userspace wants to write something atomically and we fail as a
> HW-based atomic write is not possible.
Sounds like a terrible predicant for those that want hw atomics and
reliability for it.
> What is userspace going to do next?
It would seem that would depend on their analysis on the number of
software fallbacks where a software atomic based solution is used and
the impact on performance.
> I heard something like "if HW-based atomics are not possible, then something
> has not been configured properly for the FS" - that something would be
> extent granularity and alignment, but we don't have a method to ensure this.
> That is the whole point of having a FS fallback.
We do with LBS. Its perfectly deterministic to be aligned with a sector
size matching the block size, even for metadata writes.
> > If so, then I think the next patch would also need updating.
> >
> > Or are you suggesting that without the software fallback atomic writes
> > greater than fs block size are not possible?
>
> Yes, as XFS has no method to guarantee extent granularity and alignment.
Ah, I think the documentation for this featuer should make this clear,
it was not clear up to this point in patch review.
Luis
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-23 5:18 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 [this message]
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
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=aAh4L9crlnEf3uuJ@bombadil.infradead.org \
--to=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=catherine.hoang@oracle.com \
--cc=cem@kernel.org \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=da.gomez@samsung.com \
--cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.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=p.raghav@samsung.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).