linux-scsi.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc: Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>,
	"James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com"
	<James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: I/O topology fixes for big physical block size
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:36:42 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CA25FEA.6040505@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yq162xpa7dj.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>

Martin K. Petersen wrote:

>>>>>> "Ted" == Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> writes:
>>>>>>             
>
> Ted> Can we decide soon what the right thing should be?  I'm about to
> Ted> release e2fsrogs 1.41.13, and if I should put in some sanity
> Ted> checking code so mke2fs does something sane when it sees a 1M
> Ted> physical block size, I can do that.
>
> I don't think it's entirely clear what the "right thing" would be.
>
> Let's ignore the 1MB block size for now. That's clearly a fluke and a
> buggy device. But there are SSDs that will advertise an 8KiB physical
> block size. And apparently 16KiB devices are in the pipeline.
>   
Ok, then it sounds like mkfs.ext4's refusal to make fs blocksize less
than device physical sectorsize without -F is broken, and that should
be removed.  I'd say issue a warning in the case but if there's a 16k
physical device maybe there's no point in warning either?

> How do we want to handle these devices? Allowing blocks bigger than the
> page size is going to be painful.
>
> So the question is whether we can tweak the filesystem layout in a way
> that would alleviate the pain without having to change the filesystem
> block size in the traditional sense.
>
> At least we're talking about SSDs and arrays here. I assume the partial
> block write penalty for these devices would be smaller than it is for
> rotating media.
>
>   
I guess it must be.

Anyway here's a patch to remove the force requirement and just give the
user whatever they want, since apparently we can't avoid fs blocksize
less than physical sector size in general.  It does still warn
that the fs blocksize is less than physical sectorsize, but *shrug*


diff --git a/misc/mke2fs.c b/misc/mke2fs.c
index add7c0c..6010fc1 100644
--- a/misc/mke2fs.c
+++ b/misc/mke2fs.c
@@ -1634,17 +1634,15 @@ static void PRS(int argc, char *argv[])
 					ext2fs_blocks_count(&fs_param) /
 					(blocksize / 1024));
 	} else {
-		if (blocksize < lsector_size ||			/* Impossible */
-		    (!force && (blocksize < psector_size))) {	/* Suboptimal */
+		if (blocksize < lsector_size) {			/* Impossible */
 			com_err(program_name, EINVAL,
 				_("while setting blocksize; too small "
 				  "for device\n"));
 			exit(1);
-		} else if (blocksize < psector_size) {
+		} else if (blocksize < psector_size) {		/* Suboptimal */
 			fprintf(stderr, _("Warning: specified blocksize %d is "
-				"less than device physical sectorsize %d, "
-				"forced to continue\n"), blocksize,
-				psector_size);
+				"less than device physical sectorsize %d\n")
+				blocksize, psector_size);
 		}
 	}
 

-Eric



  reply	other threads:[~2010-09-28 21:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-09-27 16:41 I/O topology fixes for big physical block size Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 16:41 ` [PATCH 1/2] block: Ensure physical block size is unsigned int Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 17:40   ` Mike Snitzer
2010-10-08  5:15     ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-10-13 19:12       ` Mike Snitzer
2010-10-13 19:15         ` Jens Axboe
2010-09-27 16:41 ` [PATCH 2/2] sd: Fix overflow with big physical blocks Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 17:42   ` Mike Snitzer
2010-09-27 18:13   ` [PATCH] block: eliminate potential for infinite loop in blkdev_issue_discard Mike Snitzer
2010-10-14 21:37     ` Mike Snitzer
2010-10-15 11:05       ` Jens Axboe
2010-09-27 16:54 ` I/O topology fixes for big physical block size Jens Axboe
2010-09-27 17:20   ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 22:21     ` Jens Axboe
2010-09-27 22:36       ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 23:15         ` Mike Snitzer
2010-09-28  4:30           ` Jens Axboe
2010-09-28  5:20             ` Eric Sandeen
2010-09-28 14:15               ` Mike Snitzer
2010-09-28 20:57                 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-09-28 21:24                   ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-28 21:36                     ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2010-09-30 16:30                       ` Ted Ts'o
2010-09-30 17:07                         ` Eric Sandeen
     [not found]                         ` <4CA4C3B6.9000104@redhat.com>
2010-09-30 17:33                           ` Mike Snitzer
2010-10-01 14:24                             ` Ted Ts'o
2010-10-01 22:19                               ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-10-02  2:31                                 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-10-04 19:49                                   ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 17:23   ` Mike Snitzer
2010-09-27 21:58     ` James Bottomley
2010-09-27 22:03       ` Jens Axboe
2010-09-27 22:14         ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-27 22:24           ` Jens Axboe
2010-09-28 18:48             ` Martin K. Petersen
2010-09-28 18:54               ` Mike Snitzer

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=4CA25FEA.6040505@redhat.com \
    --to=sandeen@redhat.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
    --cc=jaxboe@fusionio.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /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).