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 605163B6C00 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2026 15:18:05 +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=1774279085; cv=none; b=MOjzBYQxNgEz8IeOQb8C20QcyqvwCfmzGbqV8kat725U6KYN/+Vti5OBhkuRdyllWBONa2LpGCYjNvyppGFt1LbHIaIzAIvxuPHAeXpV/z9oaxkrRbiGMyLJtm2asDFEJLykvKg7p2ZOl/64nCzRLUJ52wojAr5HKYgw/RcgTQc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774279085; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EHEabmXU9LVStWwndHvug/08itKnjSZuXk0ubiKo5vk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=FwlDtcyEugaxZu9Z/7Pe8CTkwUvKtOY32ozc7nips7UfossmvXOqyki0qWVILoziA1PHecfJXln7IuvpoHSlZwsw+mw2ydrOEZSw6nA+4lMxLiHsLVQecOyo3B5yebHBOmevzvUwa6LnsX7LVJ9g2hQUuC59swL9kcHLYjf0ySM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=eQZs642c; 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="eQZs642c" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E4C4C2BCB1; Mon, 23 Mar 2026 15:18:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1774279085; bh=EHEabmXU9LVStWwndHvug/08itKnjSZuXk0ubiKo5vk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=eQZs642cVFUXTUHP2f92NoVjReO0iMj3kuVKUsLkJogkLxxzWQ2u0LxKmBzh4DV7i T2xn3SY7V2WCPm+OaAWReq6IKnOm/Om2+xNMwnWxEG6Uv8fqtQ8yU6ryI6WixoERP/ QDfinQmHRiMbdlNcJ4kO1j/MnXQjxYEB2eoIByAswY83IA3lOtU3hZhLjHpCAreiaO kBIO1ji2jliGVhlL+Fa78eNDHHrG8H//ZFJy6uFcRYBwynF45DmJyts4acWLjbFvBz K/Y6j2opbEpJ3IHOsUq+qtZF3eiQoz9fy/Uf/Z4qc28TgQX5m4HKAuE2u7zV4RXwxS vunHRtm3D9EBQ== Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 08:18:04 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: aalbersh@kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/22] xfs_scrub: allow overrides of the media verification IO limits Message-ID: <20260323151804.GF6223@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <177389506832.3681140.14985419190965827651.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <177389507344.3681140.4424251568194204096.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20260320154453.GC6223@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 Sun, Mar 22, 2026 at 11:08:53PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 08:44:53AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > So you'll need to hack the systemd unit files? How could we set this > > > on a per-file system basis? > > > > > > Not really arguing against this, but we might end up needing more > > > flexbility in the end. > > > > I'd do per-fs tweaks by defining an xfs_property and telling users to > > set it, e.g. > > > > # xfs_property /home set scrub_verify_max_size=128M > > Sounds reasonable. > > > I don't think we need to define the property right now, that can wait > > until someone has time to do a more in depth analysis of what settings > > adjustments are needed for modern hardware. I'm keener on figuring out > > something that'd work more automagically because sysadmins are lazy. :) > > Agreed. Another thing we might want is to record the scrub progress > somewhere so that we don't always start from the beginning when > interrupted. Also not really needed now, I'd rather land the code > first. I'll send out the most recent libxfs-7.0 resync patches shortly, so Andrey can get started on that. --D