public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>,
	Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com>,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 02:56:47 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111128075646.GB6000@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111127235051.GX2386@dastard>

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:50:51AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > I had the expectation that physical block size WAS the fundamental/atomic
> > IO size for the disk, and anything smaller required read/modify/write.
> > So I made this suggestion (and I think hch concurred) so that we weren't
> > doing log IOs which required RMW & translation.
> 
> A RMW cycle does not mean the IO is not atomic. The write to disk
> will still be atomic, regardless of the read that ovvurred before.

I would not trust ATA disk to get this right generally.

> > Ok, if we have mismanaged the alignment and aligned to logical, not
> > physical, then I guess there would be an issue... but at that point
> > we've already messed up (though not catastrophically I guess)...
> 
> That's where I'm concerned - if alignment is screwed because the FS
> is 512B sector aligned (because something read the logical sector size),
> then using a 4k sector will result in torn writes because every 4k
> sector write is potentially made up of 2 4k write IOs, not 1.

Disks that implement the ATA level required to tell us about the
physical blocksize also have the alignment offset information in the
IDENTIFY data to tell us about aligned shifts.  But I haven't seen a
single one with a non-zero aligned offset in the wild.

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

  reply	other threads:[~2011-11-28  7:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-11-24 19:20 [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size Carlos Maiolino
2011-11-24 19:50 ` Carlos Maiolino
2011-11-27  1:06   ` Dave Chinner
2011-11-27 23:05     ` Eric Sandeen
2011-11-27 23:50       ` Dave Chinner
2011-11-28  7:56         ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2011-11-28 16:08         ` Martin K. Petersen
2011-11-28 16:11           ` Eric Sandeen
2011-11-29 17:15             ` Martin K. Petersen
2011-11-29 17:38               ` Eric Sandeen
2011-11-30  0:19                 ` Dave Chinner
2011-11-30 15:03                   ` Carlos Maiolino
2011-11-28 16:56           ` Greg Freemyer
2011-11-28  7:54       ` Christoph Hellwig

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=20111128075646.GB6000@infradead.org \
    --to=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=cmaiolino@redhat.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /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