From: John Garry <john.garry@linux.dev>
To: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>,
cem@kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
gost.dev@samsung.com, pankaj.raghav@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: don't limit software atomic writes by the group alignment
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2026 12:02:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8d9babb0-5d36-427d-b4a2-5a3e9664a796@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260925103640.932735-1-p.raghav@samsung.com>
On 9/25/26 11:36, Pankaj Raghav wrote:
> xfs_calc_group_awu_max() clamps the atomic write unit maximum to the
> greatest power-of-two factor of the group size when the device advertises
> atomic writes, so that allocations can be made naturally aligned for
> REQ_ATOMIC. But that value is the software limit: it is only used when
> reflink is enabled, and out of place writes through the COW fork have no
> alignment requirement.
>
> mkfs caps agsize one block below 1T, so any filesystem with maximum sized
> AGs has an odd agsize. max_pow_of_two_factor() will return 1 for odd
> agsize.
>
> A filesystem on a > 4TB device that advertises 16k atomic writes then reports
> an atomic write unit maximum of a single fsblock and an optimal maximum of 0,
> and rejects any larger RWF_ATOMIC write. That is worse than the same filesystem
> on a device with no atomic write support at all.
>
> Compute the software limit from the group size alone, and apply the
> alignment constraint in xfs_get_atomic_write_max_opt() instead, which is
> what reports the size that can be offloaded to the hardware.
>
> Results on a 8TB device with 16k hardware atomic support with 4k
> blocksize:
>
> Before patches:
> /media/test/hello.txt:
> stx_atomic_write_unit_min: 4096
> stx_atomic_write_unit_max: 4096
> stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt: 0
> stx_atomic_write_segments_max: 1
>
> After patches:
> /media/test/hello.txt:
> stx_atomic_write_unit_min: 4096
> stx_atomic_write_unit_max: 2097152
> stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt: 4096
> stx_atomic_write_segments_max: 1
>
> Results on a 8TB device with 16k hardware atomic support with 16k
> blocksize:
>
> Before patches:
> /media/test/hello.txt:
> stx_atomic_write_unit_min: 16384
> stx_atomic_write_unit_max: 16384
> stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt: 0
> stx_atomic_write_segments_max: 1
>
> After patches:
> /media/test/hello.txt:
> stx_atomic_write_unit_min: 16384
> stx_atomic_write_unit_max: 33554432
> stx_atomic_write_unit_max_opt: 16384
> stx_atomic_write_segments_max: 1
>
> Fixes: 0c438dcc3150 ("xfs: add xfs_calc_atomic_write_unit_max()")
> Assisted-by: LLM
> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> index d1306e723899..8c8b14f94ede 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> @@ -620,6 +620,12 @@ xfs_get_atomic_write_min(
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static inline enum xfs_group_type
> +xfs_inode_group_type(struct xfs_inode *ip)
> +{
> + return XFS_IS_REALTIME_INODE(ip) ? XG_TYPE_RTG : XG_TYPE_AG;
> +}
would this be better is a common location (so that it could be reused)?
> +
> unsigned int
> xfs_get_atomic_write_max(
> struct xfs_inode *ip)
> @@ -642,19 +648,20 @@ xfs_get_atomic_write_max(
> * then advertise a maximum size of whatever we can complete through
> * that means. Hardware support is reported via max_opt, not here.
> */
> - if (XFS_IS_REALTIME_INODE(ip))
> - return XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, mp->m_groups[XG_TYPE_RTG].awu_max);
> - return XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, mp->m_groups[XG_TYPE_AG].awu_max);
> + return XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, mp->m_groups[xfs_inode_group_type(ip)].awu_max);
> }
>
> unsigned int
> xfs_get_atomic_write_max_opt(
> struct xfs_inode *ip)
> {
> + struct xfs_mount *mp = ip->i_mount;
> unsigned int awu_max = xfs_get_atomic_write_max(ip);
xfs_get_atomic_write_max() value is calculated based on HW atomic
support. I am wondering if we should add a function to just give the max
CoW-based atomic, and have it called here and from
xfs_get_atomic_write_max(). Not a big deal, though.
> + xfs_extlen_t align_max_fsb;
> + unsigned int opt;
>
> /* if the max is 1x block, then just keep behaviour that opt is 0 */
> - if (awu_max <= ip->i_mount->m_sb.sb_blocksize)
> + if (awu_max <= mp->m_sb.sb_blocksize)
> return 0;
>
> /*
> @@ -663,7 +670,17 @@ xfs_get_atomic_write_max_opt(
> * less than our out of place write limit, but we don't want to exceed
> * the awu_max.
> */
> - return min(awu_max, xfs_inode_buftarg(ip)->bt_awu_max);
> + opt = min(awu_max, xfs_inode_buftarg(ip)->bt_awu_max);
> +
> + /*
> + * REQ_ATOMIC writes also have to be naturally aligned on disk, so we
> + * cannot promise more than the largest extent that the allocator is
> + * able to align within a group.
> + */
> + align_max_fsb = xfs_calc_group_awu_align_max(mp,
> + xfs_inode_group_type(ip));
> +
> + return min_t(xfs_fsize_t, opt, XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, align_max_fsb));
unsigned int? But is there a possibility that the value in
XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, align_max_fsb) can exceed an unsigned int?
> }
>
> static void
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> index be90c7b03994..b7110b3d023b 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> @@ -674,15 +674,13 @@ static inline xfs_extlen_t xfs_calc_atomic_write_max(struct xfs_mount *mp)
> }
>
> /*
> - * If the underlying device advertises atomic write support, limit the size of
> - * atomic writes to the greatest power-of-two factor of the group size so
> - * that every atomic write unit aligns with the start of every group. This is
> - * required so that the allocations for an atomic write will always be
> - * aligned compatibly with the alignment requirements of the storage.
> + * The largest out of place write is the number of blocks that user files can
> + * allocate from any group.
> *
> - * If the device doesn't advertise atomic writes, then there are no alignment
> - * restrictions and the largest out-of-place write we can do ourselves is the
> - * number of blocks that user files can allocate from any group.
> + * This is a software limit, so it deliberately does not take the alignment
> + * requirements of the storage into account. An atomic write that cannot be
> + * handed to the device as a single naturally aligned REQ_ATOMIC bio is
> + * completed through the COW fork instead, which has no such requirement.
> */
> static xfs_extlen_t
> xfs_calc_group_awu_max(
> @@ -690,15 +688,30 @@ xfs_calc_group_awu_max(
> enum xfs_group_type type)
> {
> struct xfs_groups *g = &mp->m_groups[type];
> - struct xfs_buftarg *btp = xfs_group_type_buftarg(mp, type);
>
> if (g->blocks == 0)
> return 0;
> - if (btp && btp->bt_awu_min > 0)
> - return max_pow_of_two_factor(g->blocks);
> return rounddown_pow_of_two(g->blocks);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Compute the largest atomic write unit for which the allocator can guarantee
> + * naturally aligned extents in this group type.
> + *
> + * Hardware atomic writes have to be naturally aligned on disk.
> + */
> +xfs_extlen_t
> +xfs_calc_group_awu_align_max(
> + struct xfs_mount *mp,
> + enum xfs_group_type type)
> +{
> + struct xfs_groups *g = &mp->m_groups[type];
> +
> + if (g->blocks == 0)
> + return 0;
> + return max_pow_of_two_factor(g->blocks);
> +}
> +
> /* Compute the maximum atomic write unit size for each section. */
> static inline void
> xfs_calc_atomic_write_unit_max(
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h
> index 216a38a354e7..a2894c18e3c1 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h
> @@ -812,6 +812,8 @@ static inline void xfs_mod_sb_delalloc(struct xfs_mount *mp, int64_t delta)
>
> int xfs_set_max_atomic_write_opt(struct xfs_mount *mp,
> unsigned long long new_max_bytes);
> +xfs_extlen_t xfs_calc_group_awu_align_max(struct xfs_mount *mp,
> + enum xfs_group_type type);
>
> static inline struct xfs_buftarg *
> xfs_group_type_buftarg(
>
> base-commit: 1282269a5ddb044481e7f8fd43b3195e211d5475
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-05 11:02 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
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 [this message]
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=8d9babb0-5d36-427d-b4a2-5a3e9664a796@linux.dev \
--to=john.garry@linux.dev \
--cc=cem@kernel.org \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=gost.dev@samsung.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