From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE2047F61 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 2015 17:32:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 487D6AC002 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 2015 15:32:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.141]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id VnCkriugkHyc9eZU for ; Sat, 06 Jun 2015 15:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 08:32:00 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix in the setting of logbsize Message-ID: <20150606223200.GZ24666@dastard> References: <1433510925-11438-1-git-send-email-alnovak@suse.cz> <20150605222257.GY24666@dastard> <55722AD9.2080105@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55722AD9.2080105@sandeen.net> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Ales Novak , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 06:03:53PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 6/5/15 5:22 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 03:28:45PM +0200, Ales Novak wrote: > >> However, this rule is only mentioned in the documentation, while it > >> could be checked during the mount. > > > > Where in the documentation is that mentioned? > > Documentation/filesystems/xfs.txt: > > logbsize=value > Set the size of each in-memory log buffer. The size may be > specified in bytes, or in kilobytes with a "k" suffix. > Valid sizes for version 1 and version 2 logs are 16384 (16k) > and 32768 (32k). Valid sizes for version 2 logs also > include 65536 (64k), 131072 (128k) and 262144 (256k). The > logbsize must be an integer multiple of the log > stripe unit configured at mkfs time. Ah, ok. I'll need to look at the history of that, because I think I can see what it is intended to mean, but the "power-of-two" sizes that are enforced will also enforce the "integer multiple" part, too. I think it was more intended for people using wierd stripe units (e.g. 96k) to say the equivalent on 2x96k is a valid log buffer size. I suspect we need to revisit both the code and the documentation here.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs