[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZcoJ1IqADvWdYgFa@li-bb2b2a4c-3307-11b2-a85c-8fa5c3a69313.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 17:36:44 +0530
From: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
Cc: hch@....de, djwong@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org,
dchinner@...hat.com, jack@...e.cz, chandan.babu@...cle.com,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
tytso@....edu, jbongio@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] block atomic writes for XFS
On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 09:22:20AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> On 09/02/2024 07:14, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 02:26:39PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> > > This series expands atomic write support to filesystems, specifically
> > > XFS. Since XFS rtvol supports extent alignment already, support will
> > > initially be added there. When XFS forcealign feature is merged, then we
> > > can similarly support atomic writes for a non-rtvol filesystem.
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > Along with rtvol check, we can also have a simple check to see if the
> > FS blocksize itself is big enough to satisfy the atomic requirements.
> > For eg on machines with 64K page, we can have say 16k or 64k block sizes
> > which should be able to provide required allocation behavior for atomic
> > writes. In such cases we don't need rtvol.
> >
> I suppose we could do, but I would rather just concentrate on rtvol support
> initially, and there we do report atomic write unit min = FS block size
> (even if rt extsize is unset).
Okay understood.
Thanks,
ojaswin
>
> In addition, I plan to initially just support atomic write unit min = FS
> block size (for both rtvol and !rtvol).
>
> Thanks,
> John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists