[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YQwjvlvnBNPJbMwc@angband.pl>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 19:45:34 +0200
From: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@...band.pl>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, jlayton@...nel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
dchinner@...hat.com, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Could it be made possible to offer "supplementary" data to a DIO
write ?
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 03:38:01PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Generally, I prefer to write back the minimum I can get away with (as does the
> Linux NFS client AFAICT).
>
> However, if everyone agrees that we should only ever write back a multiple of
> a certain block size, even to network filesystems, what block size should that
> be? Note that PAGE_SIZE varies across arches and folios are going to
> exacerbate this. What I don't want to happen is that you read from a file, it
> creates, say, a 4M (or larger) folio; you change three bytes and then you're
> forced to write back the entire 4M folio.
grep . /sys/class/block/*/queue/minimum_io_size
and also hw_sector_size, logical_block_size, physical_block_size.
The data seems suspect to me, though. I get 4096 for a spinner (looks
sane), 512 for nvme (less than page size), and 4096 for pmem (I'd expect
cacheline or ECC block).
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Certified airhead; got the CT scan to prove that!
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀
Powered by blists - more mailing lists