From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, kbusch@kernel.org, hch@lst.de, sagi@grimberg.me,
martin.petersen@oracle.com, djwong@kernel.org,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org, dchinner@redhat.com,
jejb@linux.ibm.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, paul@paul-moore.com,
jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 03/16] xfs: Support atomic write for statx
Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 08:17:49 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230503221749.GF3223426@dread.disaster.area> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230503183821.1473305-4-john.g.garry@oracle.com>
On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 06:38:08PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> Support providing info on atomic write unit min and max.
>
> Darrick Wong originally authored this change.
>
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c | 10 ++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> index 24718adb3c16..e542077704aa 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> @@ -614,6 +614,16 @@ xfs_vn_getattr(
> stat->dio_mem_align = bdev_dma_alignment(bdev) + 1;
> stat->dio_offset_align = bdev_logical_block_size(bdev);
> }
> + if (request_mask & STATX_WRITE_ATOMIC) {
> + struct xfs_buftarg *target = xfs_inode_buftarg(ip);
> + struct block_device *bdev = target->bt_bdev;
> +
> + stat->atomic_write_unit_min = queue_atomic_write_unit_min(bdev->bd_queue);
> + stat->atomic_write_unit_max = queue_atomic_write_unit_max(bdev->bd_queue);
I'm not sure this is right.
Given that we may have a 4kB physical sector device, XFS will not
allow IOs smaller than physical sector size. The initial values of
queue_atomic_write_unit_min/max() will be (1 << SECTOR_SIZE) which
is 512 bytes. IOs done with 4kB sector size devices will fail in
this case.
Further, XFS has a software sector size - it can define the sector
size for the filesystem to be 4KB on a 512 byte sector device. And
in that case, the filesystem will reject 512 byte sized/aligned IOs
as they are smaller than the filesystem sector size (i.e. a config
that prevents sub-physical sector IO for 512 logical/4kB physical
devices).
There may other filesystem constraints - realtime devices have fixed
minimum allocation sizes which may be larger than atomic write
limits, which means that IO completion needs to split extents into
multiple unwritten/written extents, extent size hints might be in
use meaning we have different allocation alignment constraints to
atomic write constraints, stripe alignment of extent allocation may
through out atomic write alignment, etc.
These are all solvable, but we need to make sure here that the
filesystem constraints are taken into account here, not just the
block device limits.
As such, it is probably better to query these limits at filesystem
mount time and add them to the xfs buftarg (same as we do for
logical and physical sector sizes) and then use the xfs buftarg
values rather than having to go all the way to the device queue
here. That way we can ensure at mount time that atomic write limits
don't conflict with logical/physical IO limits, and we can further
constrain atomic limits during mount without always having to
recalculate those limits from first principles on every stat()
call...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-03 22:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-03 18:38 [PATCH RFC 00/16] block atomic writes John Garry
2023-05-03 18:38 ` [PATCH RFC 01/16] block: Add atomic write operations to request_queue limits John Garry
2023-05-03 21:39 ` Dave Chinner
2023-05-04 18:14 ` John Garry
2023-05-04 22:26 ` Dave Chinner
2023-05-05 7:54 ` John Garry
2023-05-05 22:00 ` Darrick J. Wong
2023-05-07 1:59 ` Martin K. Petersen
2023-05-05 23:18 ` Dave Chinner
2023-05-06 9:38 ` John Garry
2023-05-07 2:35 ` Martin K. Petersen
2023-05-05 22:47 ` Eric Biggers
2023-05-05 23:31 ` Dave Chinner
2023-05-06 0:08 ` Eric Biggers
2023-05-09 0:19 ` Mike Snitzer
2023-05-17 17:02 ` John Garry
2023-05-03 18:38 ` [PATCH RFC 02/16] fs/bdev: Add atomic write support info to statx John Garry
2023-05-03 21:58 ` Dave Chinner
2023-05-04 8:45 ` John Garry
2023-05-04 22:40 ` Dave Chinner
2023-05-05 8:01 ` John Garry
2023-05-05 22:04 ` Darrick J. Wong
2023-05-03 18:38 ` [PATCH RFC 03/16] xfs: Support atomic write for statx John Garry
2023-05-03 22:17 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2023-05-05 22:10 ` Darrick J. Wong
2023-05-03 18:38 ` [PATCH RFC 04/16] fs: Add RWF_ATOMIC and IOCB_ATOMIC flags for atomic write support John Garry
2023-05-03 18:38 ` [PATCH RFC 05/16] block: Add REQ_ATOMIC flag John Garry
2023-05-03 18:38 ` [PATCH RFC 06/16] block: Limit atomic writes according to bio and queue limits John Garry
2023-05-03 18:53 ` Keith Busch
2023-05-04 8:24 ` John Garry
2023-05-03 18:38 ` [PATCH RFC 07/16] block: Add bdev_find_max_atomic_write_alignment() John Garry
2023-05-03 18:38 ` [PATCH RFC 08/16] block: Add support for atomic_write_unit John Garry
2023-05-03 18:38 ` [PATCH RFC 09/16] block: Add blk_validate_atomic_write_op() John Garry
2023-05-03 18:38 ` [PATCH RFC 10/16] block: Add fops atomic write support John Garry
2023-05-03 18:38 ` [PATCH RFC 11/16] fs: iomap: Atomic " John Garry
2023-05-04 5:00 ` Dave Chinner
2023-05-05 21:19 ` Darrick J. Wong
2023-05-05 23:56 ` Dave Chinner
2023-05-03 18:38 ` [PATCH RFC 12/16] xfs: Add support for fallocate2 John Garry
2023-05-03 23:26 ` Dave Chinner
2023-05-05 22:23 ` Darrick J. Wong
2023-05-05 23:42 ` Dave Chinner
2023-05-03 18:38 ` [PATCH RFC 13/16] scsi: sd: Support reading atomic properties from block limits VPD John Garry
2023-05-03 18:38 ` [PATCH RFC 14/16] scsi: sd: Add WRITE_ATOMIC_16 support John Garry
2023-05-03 18:48 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-05-04 8:17 ` John Garry
2023-05-03 18:38 ` [PATCH RFC 15/16] scsi: scsi_debug: Atomic write support John Garry
2023-05-03 18:38 ` [PATCH RFC 16/16] nvme: Support atomic writes John Garry
2023-05-03 18:49 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-05-04 8:19 ` 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=20230503221749.GF3223426@dread.disaster.area \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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