From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52D0FC433F5 for ; Sat, 28 May 2022 02:31:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1354412AbiE1CbR (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2022 22:31:17 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51396 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234738AbiE1CbQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2022 22:31:16 -0400 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33760B0C for ; Fri, 27 May 2022 19:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cwcc.thunk.org (pool-108-7-220-252.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [108.7.220.252]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 24S2V8Ew019947 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 27 May 2022 22:31:08 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1653705069; bh=Z1u6ON107qcZpMZtGHhGQiIlGB+ni4YayX1wyfjEFM4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=dgWIQM9tuiD691xWB8GYw2UYZAjhx2d/v2meebN6dS/jk7mv13r8TD7L7LFCFwfd5 P4CN112WLz6Zcu69IwM+zbu7o5w30hqmFM6+WBwuin1Z7T7miAxEhaehkXePkjcGCs RT1FufnibIfM2lgcyw7k5Wxv6pWaiQ8ouAyeu7DB1885TzlzwMXCkkXaxQ65usSv9g HCiXfNF2f17CjeUMxZNLsmtlBLQM0mRR/DBgqXCLvRCBN9pi+TbYEBD4IyFDgJBgOZ uUXDEL6ofOGeH5pUsfFc4FMh0WjUha2AMhCOB/f+U45hxCzRI308ypWO4X5g3GgPIz jT00xgwGdi35A== Received: by cwcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id CFCB315C009C; Fri, 27 May 2022 22:31:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 May 2022 22:31:07 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: "Kiselev, Oleg" Cc: "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Does `-O bigalloc` still conflict with `delalloc`? Message-ID: References: <923065C9-2EFB-4F59-895E-139B4B9F9E98@amazon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <923065C9-2EFB-4F59-895E-139B4B9F9E98@amazon.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 02:39:00AM +0000, Kiselev, Oleg wrote: > The `ext4(5)` man page, contained in the most recent e2fsprogs still says: > > Warning: The bigalloc feature is still under development, and may not be fully supported > with your kernel or may have various bugs. Please see the web page http://ext4.wiki.ker‐ > nel.org/index.php/Bigalloc for details. May clash with delayed allocation (see nodelal‐ > loc mount option). > > Is a bad interaction with `delalloc` still an issue and should we be using the `nodelalloc` option? Apologies for not getting back to you right away. I wanted to check with some folks on the ext4 team, and in fact we talked about it at this week's ext4 video chat. Eric Whitney worked on fixing bigalloc and delalloc, and it looks like the last of the fixes landed in Linux version 5.4 in 2019. So that warning in the ext4(5) man page is definitely out of date. I'll remove it in the next release of e2fsprogs. Cheers, - Ted