From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (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 6F3FB36E498; Tue, 23 Jun 2026 14:41:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782225675; cv=none; b=bwW3/Q+/mHFFPWJBclTga7RzNy3OScADk3tVbny0vNTJjqhw+Un+PJ5wBmLUxiYFl6iHSEr1rhNjVwBSaE7ZZMPwHa7ivmJAC+ZA+N1xXg5F0qoZQywcZoZVDAE3mcStoK4JMUxhUlBw3tUi87TSMO8lH2hUijKMWS1mfRVZGCg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782225675; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1TVmza4ah9fy7QE8dUFRGSBWXfuGA11lbIFLNEleDfQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=CEk3jQUmgHYanK3bXx9UBGL7H56XZMcHdIxVfSNn5DUut1zxxV9M3v1k4Kl1qtkBK38GPScf6368gDzfPr8+OXPdtzxdYN15nyiCClGnzaVSmlTs5m/Sv2IjBXBxLJZOuE+yWd7esri3/gDUqL4eZG69JpJE+TO2MMRahgOfzww= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=lFxYT/La; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=bombadil.srs.infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="lFxYT/La" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=4d9uZihVTITqECjNOckLRPY91GcChvumLhfsntVrCpo=; b=lFxYT/LawOdPucwQWwKoiiK7Qw r4UvtC1tdnd8Lc+W6PsMMeN2CV8qZqdTYVz6bT00Gy/jYPU55SqM8Sx9JYl7Fwa0cjH59GVzCf5qN Bj7E1N7FobfM9i+BmeaKY9H8GXsV3d7okFAcjPuynIQPXjhWzRSuIGV1Jq/Bc3KvD9Dmi0LuhbLwq +bUn/0fbP3zkFKCKYvD4OY3fSQc49IcqROHqaZbNnW4+3+sOQjiVYcnyogobkajILWEe3MaCIGAYk vx0bPxUNRvJwTAxQet9beoa1iNVjI4js0H7uiEm6ZyIHdkRcYpxI28008P887X/kE0H+zpWggwwul r5XnxeZA==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wc2JK-00000006TPV-2XNB; Tue, 23 Jun 2026 14:41:10 +0000 Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2026 07:41:10 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Jan Kara Cc: Carlos Maiolino , Lukas Herbolt , hch@infradead.org, aalbersh@redhat.com, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, "Darrick J. Wong" , ailiopoulos@suse.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mkfs.xfs fix sunit size on 512e and 4kN disks. Message-ID: References: <20260219114405.31521-3-lukas@herbolt.com> <20260219114405.31521-6-lukas@herbolt.com> 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: X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 12:05:25PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > by accident. Properly aligning it to 64k to match its min_io_size is the > > right thing to do to avoid lots of RMW cycles for once. But I'm pretty > > sure you already know that :) > > Yes, I agree the XFS logging with the old defaults performed well on that > machine only due to the battery backed cache. Which to me suggests it is reporting the wrong min_io_size. But good luck getting RAID controller firmware fixed. Although maybe we should quirk it in the driver? > > Well, I don't think 'fsync heavy' applications are the default, or if > > they are, specially on high-end systems, then I'd argue the application > > ought to know what it's doing. I do agree that's no universal win > > anywhere and yet seem to fix the sunit to the hardware reported size is > > the right thing to do here. > > Fair. I think the real question is if the value/defaults have any benefits for this setup. And I somehow doubt it.