From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98FED1ABECD; Mon, 25 Nov 2024 13:44:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.189 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732542289; cv=none; b=LaSq6LardekRkfWXkEK4ohKRoc+nYdFEkK1Ax6DAyOzF39R7GAm3hyx6uIP25QKhr7cAZXk4UPVA+4Np7kMyJPz/nEbv4IiKgBJ2bwXGqlDubxmCHCaE7tJOe6gndQ4M23jtu6NeZ7G5GjqZP2N10V3S7NOlE3MJgkvPME4TLbA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732542289; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pXWrfgPtUiMGaYO4YxKycoWEXFfEFi5SD0iAfeDGyo0=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=YHsRKWmQT2HfLjaIqYUyODovQglzHAllZK6sTLJQZF97onjM+7rKvwaBBGam2bflU67YHg/3Pvi7uQd2Hebku3opdyzScZJkRo39pLd9+z8jNV+h9XLwOgNnEO+i3m4Ig//Vi2Y1XLAaolsxZ78cvxESi6R1kBc8yMkaMkber9c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.189 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.254]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Xxn364h4czRhn5; Mon, 25 Nov 2024 21:43:14 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpemf500017.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.185.36.126]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91548180105; Mon, 25 Nov 2024 21:44:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.175.112.188) by dggpemf500017.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.126) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Mon, 25 Nov 2024 21:44:42 +0800 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 21:42:48 +0800 From: Long Li To: Christoph Hellwig CC: , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] iomap: fix zero padding data issue in concurrent append writes Message-ID: References: <20241125023341.2816630-1-leo.lilong@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.183) To dggpemf500017.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.126) On Sun, Nov 24, 2024 at 10:40:20PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 10:33:40AM +0800, Long Li wrote: > > 1. collect reviewed tag > > 2. Modify the comment of io_size and iomap_ioend_size_aligned(). > > 3. Add explain of iomap_ioend_size_aligned() to commit message. > > Just curious, did you look into Brian's suggestions to do away > with the rounding up entirely as there is not much practical benefit > in merging behind EOF? > > I agree with Brian's point. The scenarios where rounding up io_size enables ioend merging are quite rare, so the practical benefits are limited, though such cases can still exist. Therefore, I think both approaches are acceptable as there doesn't seem to be a significant difference between them. Thanks, Long Li