public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* sector size warning at mount time
@ 2010-09-16 18:38 Eric Sandeen
  2010-09-16 23:18 ` Dave Chinner
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandeen @ 2010-09-16 18:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: xfs-oss

On ppc64 I'm tripping this warning:

        if (verbose &&
            (PAGE_CACHE_SIZE / BITS_PER_LONG) > sectorsize) {
                printk(KERN_WARNING
                        "XFS: %u byte sectors in use on device %s.  "
                        "This is suboptimal; %u or greater is ideal.\n",
                        sectorsize, XFS_BUFTARG_NAME(btp),
                        (unsigned int)PAGE_CACHE_SIZE / BITS_PER_LONG);
        }

and it's telling me I should have 1024-byte sectors...

If the kernel is going to complain at mount, should we get it right
at mkfs time?  I'm not even quite sure why it's recommending this?

Thanks,
-Eric

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: sector size warning at mount time
  2010-09-16 18:38 sector size warning at mount time Eric Sandeen
@ 2010-09-16 23:18 ` Dave Chinner
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2010-09-16 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: xfs-oss

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 01:38:23PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On ppc64 I'm tripping this warning:
> 
>         if (verbose &&
>             (PAGE_CACHE_SIZE / BITS_PER_LONG) > sectorsize) {
>                 printk(KERN_WARNING
>                         "XFS: %u byte sectors in use on device %s.  "
>                         "This is suboptimal; %u or greater is ideal.\n",
>                         sectorsize, XFS_BUFTARG_NAME(btp),
>                         (unsigned int)PAGE_CACHE_SIZE / BITS_PER_LONG);
>         }
> 
> and it's telling me I should have 1024-byte sectors...
> 
> If the kernel is going to complain at mount, should we get it right
> at mkfs time?  I'm not even quite sure why it's recommending this?

Because it requires 128 bits to track each sector in page when the
buffer cache is has to use sub-page buffers. That's all the
test/set_region garbage that it has.

The don't-user-the-page-cache part of my buffer cache rework fixes
this bug, so I probably wouldn't bother changing anything else at this
point in time...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2010-09-16 23:17 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-09-16 18:38 sector size warning at mount time Eric Sandeen
2010-09-16 23:18 ` Dave Chinner

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox