The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
Cc: brauner@kernel.org, cem@kernel.org, dchinner@redhat.com,
	hch@lst.de, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	ojaswin@linux.ibm.com, ritesh.list@gmail.com,
	martin.petersen@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 09/10] xfs: Update atomic write max size
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 09:15:16 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b2fb57fc-7a3d-496b-8f1e-110814440e5b@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250205194115.GV21808@frogsfrogsfrogs>

On 05/02/2025 19:41, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 12:01:26PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>> Now that CoW-based atomic writes are supported, update the max size of an
>> atomic write.
>>
>> For simplicity, limit at the max of what the mounted bdev can support in
>> terms of atomic write limits. Maybe in future we will have a better way
>> to advertise this optimised limit.
>>
>> In addition, the max atomic write size needs to be aligned to the agsize.
>> Currently when attempting to use HW offload, we  just check that the
>> mapping startblock is aligned. However, that is just the startblock within
>> the AG, and the AG may not be properly aligned to the underlying block
>> device atomic write limits.
>>
>> As such, limit atomic writes to the greatest power-of-2 which fits in an
>> AG, so that aligning to the startblock will be mean that we are also
>> aligned to the disk block.

Right, "startblock" is a bit vague

> 
> I don't understand this sentence -- what are we "aligning to the
> startblock"?  I think you're saying that you want to limit the size of
> untorn writes to the greatest power-of-two factor of the agsize so that
> allocations for an untorn write will always be aligned compatibly with
> the alignment requirements of the storage for an untorn write?

Yes, that's it. I'll borrow your wording :)

> 
>> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
>> ---
>>   fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c  |  7 ++++++-
>>   fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h |  1 +
>>   3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
>> index ea79fb246e33..95681d6c2bcd 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
>> @@ -606,12 +606,17 @@ xfs_get_atomic_write_attr(
>>   	unsigned int		*unit_min,
>>   	unsigned int		*unit_max)
>>   {
>> +	struct xfs_buftarg	*target = xfs_inode_buftarg(ip);
>> +	struct xfs_mount	*mp = ip->i_mount;
>> +
>>   	if (!xfs_inode_can_atomicwrite(ip)) {
>>   		*unit_min = *unit_max = 0;
>>   		return;
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	*unit_min = *unit_max = ip->i_mount->m_sb.sb_blocksize;
>> +	*unit_min = ip->i_mount->m_sb.sb_blocksize;
>> +	*unit_max =  min_t(unsigned int, XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, mp->awu_max),
>> +					target->bt_bdev_awu_max);
>>   }
>>   
>>   static void
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
>> index 477c5262cf91..4e60347f6b7e 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
>> @@ -651,6 +651,32 @@ xfs_agbtree_compute_maxlevels(
>>   	levels = max(levels, mp->m_rmap_maxlevels);
>>   	mp->m_agbtree_maxlevels = max(levels, mp->m_refc_maxlevels);
>>   }
>> +static inline void
>> +xfs_mp_compute_awu_max(
> 
> xfs_compute_awu_max() ?

ok

> 
>> +	struct xfs_mount	*mp)
>> +{
>> +	xfs_agblock_t		agsize = mp->m_sb.sb_agblocks;
>> +	xfs_agblock_t		awu_max;
>> +
>> +	if (!xfs_has_reflink(mp)) {
>> +		mp->awu_max = 1;
>> +		return;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Find highest power-of-2 evenly divisible into agsize and which
>> +	 * also fits into an unsigned int field.
>> +	 */
>> +	awu_max = 1;
>> +	while (1) {
>> +		if (agsize % (awu_max * 2))
>> +			break;
>> +		if (XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, awu_max * 2) > UINT_MAX)
>> +			break;
>> +		awu_max *= 2;
>> +	}
>> +	mp->awu_max = awu_max;
> 
> I think you need two awu_maxes here -- one for the data device, and
> another for the realtime device.
How about we just don't support rtdev initially for this CoW-based 
method, i.e. stick at 1x FSB awu max?

 >  The rt computation is probably more
 > complex since I think it's the greatest power of two that fits in the rt
 > extent size if it isn't a power of two;> or the greatest power of 
two> that fits in the rtgroup if rtgroups are enabled; or probably just no
 > limit otherwise.
 >

Thanks,
John

  reply	other threads:[~2025-02-06  9:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-02-04 12:01 [PATCH RFC 00/10] large atomic writes for xfs with CoW John Garry
2025-02-04 12:01 ` [PATCH RFC 01/10] xfs: Switch atomic write size check in xfs_file_write_iter() John Garry
2025-02-04 12:01 ` [PATCH RFC 02/10] xfs: Refactor xfs_reflink_end_cow_extent() John Garry
2025-02-05 19:50   ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-06 10:35     ` John Garry
2025-02-06 21:38       ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-04 12:01 ` [PATCH RFC 03/10] iomap: Support CoW-based atomic writes John Garry
2025-02-05 20:11   ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-06 11:21     ` John Garry
2025-02-06 21:40       ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-04 12:01 ` [PATCH RFC 04/10] xfs: Make xfs_find_trim_cow_extent() public John Garry
2025-02-04 12:01 ` [PATCH RFC 05/10] xfs: Reflink CoW-based atomic write support John Garry
2025-02-04 12:01 ` [PATCH RFC 06/10] xfs: iomap " John Garry
2025-02-05 20:05   ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-06 11:10     ` John Garry
2025-02-06 21:44       ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-07 11:48         ` John Garry
2025-02-04 12:01 ` [PATCH RFC 07/10] xfs: Add xfs_file_dio_write_atomic() John Garry
2025-02-05 19:55   ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-06 10:43     ` John Garry
2025-02-10 16:59   ` John Garry
2025-02-04 12:01 ` [PATCH RFC 08/10] xfs: Commit CoW-based atomic writes atomically John Garry
2025-02-05 19:47   ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-06 10:27     ` John Garry
2025-02-06 21:50       ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-07 11:52         ` John Garry
2025-02-04 12:01 ` [PATCH RFC 09/10] xfs: Update atomic write max size John Garry
2025-02-05 19:41   ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-06  9:15     ` John Garry [this message]
2025-02-06 21:54       ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-07 11:53         ` John Garry
2025-02-04 12:01 ` [PATCH RFC 10/10] xfs: Allow block allocator to take an alignment hint John Garry
2025-02-05 19:20   ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-06  8:10     ` John Garry
2025-02-06 21:54       ` Darrick J. Wong

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=b2fb57fc-7a3d-496b-8f1e-110814440e5b@oracle.com \
    --to=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
    --cc=brauner@kernel.org \
    --cc=cem@kernel.org \
    --cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
    --cc=djwong@kernel.org \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=ojaswin@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
    /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