From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q62D0sqK222175 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 08:00:55 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id U8VEalsJ7rLlaWVI for ; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 06:00:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:00:34 -0400 From: Mike Snitzer Subject: Re: Ext4 and xfs problems in dm-thin on allocation and discard Message-ID: <20120702130034.GA785@redhat.com> References: <4FDF9EBE.2030809@shiftmail.org> <20120619015745.GJ25389@dastard> <4FE1BDF3.4080702@shiftmail.org> <20120620225327.GL30705@dastard> <20120621174742.GA27837@redhat.com> <4FF06480.6030109@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FF06480.6030109@redhat.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, "Martin K. Petersen" , xfs@oss.sgi.com, hch@infradead.org, device-mapper development , Spelic , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jul 01 2012 at 10:53am -0400, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 21/06/2012 19:47, Mike Snitzer ha scritto: > > Paolo Bonzini fixed blkdev_issue_discard to properly align some time > > ago; unfortunately the patches slipped through the cracks (cc'ing Paolo, > > Jens, and Christoph). > > > > Here are references to Paolo's patches: > > 0/2 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/14/323 > > 1/2 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/14/324 > > 2/2 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/14/325 > > > > Patch 2/2 specifically addresses the case where: > > discard_max_bytes == discard_granularity > > > > Paolo, any chance you could resend to Jens (maybe with hch's comments on > > patch#2 accounted for)? Also, please add hch's Reviewed-by when > > reposting. > > Sure, I'll do it this week. I just need to retest. Great, thanks. (cc'ing mkp) One thing that seemed odd was your adjustment for discard_alignment (in patch 1/2). I need to better understand how discard_alignment (an offset despite the name not saying as much) relates to alignment_offset. Could just be that once a partition tool, or lvm, etc account for alignment_offset (which they do now) that discard_alignment is automagically accounted for as a side-effect? (I haven't actually seen discard_alignment != 0 in the wild) Mike _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs