From: John Garry <john.garry@linux.dev>
To: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <pankaj.raghav@linux.dev>
Cc: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>,
cem@kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
gost.dev@samsung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: don't limit software atomic writes by the group alignment
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 09:42:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <29380cd8-19f5-4ae7-bdb7-b7908decb474@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <jwtdhhbo7ukt5cynhdfrxu3xjwyk3wwg66uxhtnkokvabbokge@b6b4pk3yja24>
On 9/30/26 06:10, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
>>> Just to give more context:
>>>
>>> Trace of calc_atomic_write_unit_max:
>>>
>>> mount-696 [010] 449.230543: xfs_calc_atomic_write_unit_max: dev
>>> 259:0 ag max_write 262144 max_ioend 512 max_gsize 134217728 awu_max 512
>>>
>>> 2097152 comes from awumax being 512 fsblocks.
>>>
>>> root@debian:~# xfs_info /dev/nvme0n1
>>> meta-data=/dev/nvme0n1 isize=512 agcount=8,
>>> agsize=268435455 blks
>>
>> Well max power-of-2 factor of this is going to be 1.
>>
>
> Exactly. I get that we should restrict max_opt to be 1 because the AG's
> will not be aligned and the best we can do is one fsblock for HW based
> atomics. Why should we restrict the max (SW atomics limit) to 1 fsblock?
>
Maybe in this case we don't need to restrict CoW-based atomics to 1
fsblock. But why care? I mean, you have HW support, which is so much
better to use than CoW-based atomics, so better to config your FS to
avail of them.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-30 8:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-25 10:36 [PATCH] xfs: don't limit software atomic writes by the group alignment Pankaj Raghav
2026-09-25 11:44 ` John Garry
2026-09-29 7:17 ` Pankaj Raghav
2026-09-29 14:47 ` John Garry
2026-09-30 5:10 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2026-09-30 8:42 ` John Garry [this message]
2026-09-30 12:27 ` Pankaj Raghav
2026-09-30 12:48 ` John Garry
2026-10-01 16:30 ` Pankaj Raghav
2026-10-02 8:45 ` John Garry
2026-10-02 11:24 ` Pankaj Raghav
2026-09-29 16:40 ` Darrick J. Wong
2026-09-29 20:42 ` Darrick J. Wong
2026-09-30 8:48 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2026-10-07 17:43 ` Darrick J. Wong
2026-10-05 11:02 ` John Garry
2026-10-05 11:02 ` John Garry
2026-10-05 16:24 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2026-10-06 7:06 ` John Garry
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=29380cd8-19f5-4ae7-bdb7-b7908decb474@linux.dev \
--to=john.garry@linux.dev \
--cc=cem@kernel.org \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=gost.dev@samsung.com \
--cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=p.raghav@samsung.com \
--cc=pankaj.raghav@linux.dev \
/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