Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] xfs: Allow block allocator to take an alignment hint

[John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>]

On 24/02/2025 20:37, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 01:56:19PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>> When issuing an atomic write by the CoW method, give the block allocator a
>> hint to naturally align the data blocks.
>>
>> This means that we have a better chance to issuing the atomic write via
>> HW offload next time.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
>> ---
>>   fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c | 7 ++++++-
>>   fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.h | 6 +++++-
>>   fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c     | 8 ++++++--
>>   3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
>> index 0ef19f1469ec..9bfdfb7cdcae 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
>> @@ -3454,6 +3454,12 @@ xfs_bmap_compute_alignments(
>>   		align = xfs_get_cowextsz_hint(ap->ip);
>>   	else if (ap->datatype & XFS_ALLOC_USERDATA)
>>   		align = xfs_get_extsz_hint(ap->ip);
>> +
>> +	if (align > 1 && ap->flags & XFS_BMAPI_EXTSZALIGN)
>> +		args->alignment = align;
>> +	else
>> +		args->alignment = 1;
>> +
>>   	if (align) {
>>   		if (xfs_bmap_extsize_align(mp, &ap->got, &ap->prev, align, 0,
>>   					ap->eof, 0, ap->conv, &ap->offset,
>> @@ -3782,7 +3788,6 @@ xfs_bmap_btalloc(
>>   		.wasdel		= ap->wasdel,
>>   		.resv		= XFS_AG_RESV_NONE,
>>   		.datatype	= ap->datatype,
>> -		.alignment	= 1,
>>   		.minalignslop	= 0,
>>   	};
>>   	xfs_fileoff_t		orig_offset;
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.h b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.h
>> index 4b721d935994..7a31697331dc 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.h
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.h
>> @@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ struct xfs_bmalloca {
>>   /* Do not update the rmap btree.  Used for reconstructing bmbt from rmapbt. */
>>   #define XFS_BMAPI_NORMAP	(1u << 10)
>>   
>> +/* Try to naturally align allocations to extsz hint */
>> +#define XFS_BMAPI_EXTSZALIGN	(1u << 11)
> 
> IMO "naturally" makes things confusing here -- are we aligning to the
> extent size hint, or are we aligning to the length requested?  Or
> whatever it is that "naturally" means.

We align to extsz hint, not length.

As for use of word "naturally", I'll try to avoid using that word.

> 
> (FWIW you and I have bumped over this repeatedly, so maybe this is
> simple one of those cognitive friction things where block storage always
> deals with powers of two and "naturally" means a lot, vs. filesystems
> where we don't usually enforce alignment anywhere.)
> 
> I suggest "Try to align allocations to the extent size hint" for the
> comment, and with that:

that's fine

> Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
> 

cheers,
John