From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64F512417DA for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2025 23:07:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738883242; cv=none; b=aOUElYxdXFYnIVjEQJHUxO+q24t6guycBSWpl0U59SptUd/SNL2gRxFZqgcJoOhgwSTl0M7yny/VwF4PaTvHMycfJJewiomWfSd5m08zS8RLSRqQNMYJtxwgB7a7bmRWfBCwoYFqS+vaVyoGS03e0X9hln9xB/IKPbHc9vllWU4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738883242; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vSqNxEkl72TcZFt/HVNiphd57dV1hWqaqGY+PHNMnvA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=O84/1fB8s+uduWs6182bPrWjmLopDBVIBc/vTo2k+aph0L2MXJpqe6RsMvvMOu3XilVTdUd/HMDN/Cy+XYUITUCp4GAa3iFGKlH+d4Q3ARQQMKvcc5356Hmk0x3uA7M4eD/+eBzjPQW+zR+FLDbkH5KuZr1hFILA0oMMTvQXmM0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=qEHo4sja; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="qEHo4sja" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3978FC4CEDD; Thu, 6 Feb 2025 23:07:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1738883242; bh=vSqNxEkl72TcZFt/HVNiphd57dV1hWqaqGY+PHNMnvA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=qEHo4sjaMvZZTRC4fuodHMooNGDt8BK1RKdKdaCErxTB/mKoCxc5M6s7N/Ly8tfnT 6O/8aQpbDz2ubsmtETTCBQMqpkTOQmSOwJktXaP6Hi2IeB4bFTWxGBR+8VB2XEm2GR 9smLc8q06Dl5Bd+L5doZ+1/KGZgQGChpNmVOYpfgq2fGdmOFPG1N8LhWePThJ+9Q0o 0uKQNWShMpw6IbxZ3tmr7G3Ak0PD5yW6LOhp2OaV2V4NXrNK3OZwUHbLT+abjrgN8W UTbI6KSf7DbCuvmCEEddlDRAp4EtxaIHqepOaXstQIuU1yOWoEtmuCNEWpOMtFK3ES CRNYJUUKwox8Q== Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:07:21 -0800 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Luis Chamberlain Cc: da.gomez@kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Gomez , Pankaj Raghav , gost.dev@samsung.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mkfs: use stx_blksize for dev block size by default Message-ID: <20250206230721.GC21808@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20250206-min-io-default-blocksize-v1-1-2312e0bb8809@samsung.com> <20250206222716.GB21808@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 02:50:28PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 02:27:16PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > Now you've decreased the default blocksize to 512 on sda, and md0 gets > > an impossible 512k blocksize. Also, disrupting the default 4k blocksize > > will introduce portability problems with distros that aren't yet > > shipping 6.12. > > Our default should be 4k, and to address the later we should sanity > check and user an upper limit of what XFS supports, 64k. I don't think it's a good idea to boost the default fsblock size beyond 4k until we get further into the era where the major distros are shipping 6.12 kernels. I wouldn't want to deal with people accidentally ending up with an 8k fsblock filesystem that they can't mount on fairly new things like RHEL9/Debian12/etc. --D > Thoughts? > > Luis >