Re: [PATCH] scsi/sd: Fix size output in MB

Matthew Wilcox
2008-08-30T17:45:44Z

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 12:24:50PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> linux-scsi is the correct list for this, cc's added
>
> On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 15:08 +0100, Simon Arlott wrote:
> > The capacity printk'd in bytes is divided by 1000000,
> > whereas 1048576 would be more consistent with the rest
> > of the OS and disk-related utilities ('df' etc.).

> > - /* avoid 64-bit division on 32-bit platforms */
> > - sector_div(sz, 625);
> > - mb -= sz - 974;
> > - sector_div(mb, 1950);
> > + /* Convert to megabytes (/2048) */
> > + mb = sz >> 11;
> >
> > sd_printk(KERN_NOTICE, sdkp,
> > "%llu %d-byte hardware sectors (%llu MB)\n",
>
> No, this is wrong. By mandated standards the manufacturers are allowed
> to calculate MB by dividing by 10^6. This is a fiddle to allow them to
> make their drives look slightly bigger. However, we want the printed
> information to match that written on the drive, so in this printk, we
> use the manufacturer standard for calculation (and then do everything
> else in bytes so we don't have to bother with it ever again).

I was looking at this code recently because it looks really bizarre when
you create a half-petabyte filesystem:

$ sudo insmod drivers/ata/ata_ram.ko capacity=1099511627776 preallocate=0

[12095.028093] ata7.00: 1099511627776 sectors, multi 0: LBA48 NCQ (depth 31/32)
[12095.028093] ata7.00: configured for UDMA/133
[12095.041915] scsi 7:0:0:0: Direct-Access ATA Linux RAM Drive 0.01 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
[12095.041915] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Very big device. Trying to use READ CAPACITY(16).
[12095.041915] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] 1099511627776 512-byte hardware sectors (562949953 MB)
[12095.041915] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Write Protect is off
[12095.041915] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdc] Write cache: disabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA

1. Avoiding 64-bit divisions is _so_ last decade. We have
linux/math64.h, we should use it.

2. We should report in GB or TB when appropriate. The exact definition
of 'appropriate' is going to vary from person to person. Might I
suggest that we should report between two and four significant digits.
eg 9543 MB is ok, 10543 MB should be 10 GB.

3. I hate myself for saying this ... but maybe we should be using the
horrific MiB/GiB/TiB instead of MB/GB/TB.

4. I've been far too busy to write said patch. Simon, would you mind
doing the honours?

--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."