[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240213162704.GQ6184@frogsfrogsfrogs>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 08:27:04 -0800
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@...kajraghav.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
mcgrof@...nel.org, gost.dev@...sung.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
kbusch@...nel.org, chandan.babu@...cle.com, p.raghav@...sung.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hare@...e.de, willy@...radead.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, david@...morbit.com,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 11/14] xfs: expose block size in stat
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:37:10AM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
>
> For block size larger than page size, the unit of efficient IO is
> the block size, not the page size. Leaving stat() to report
> PAGE_SIZE as the block size causes test programs like fsx to issue
> illegal ranges for operations that require block size alignment
> (e.g. fallocate() insert range). Hence update the preferred IO size
> to reflect the block size in this case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
> [mcgrof: forward rebase in consideration for commit
> dd2d535e3fb29d ("xfs: cleanup calculating the stat optimal I/O size")]
> Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> index a0d77f5f512e..8791a9d80897 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> @@ -515,6 +515,8 @@ xfs_stat_blksize(
> struct xfs_inode *ip)
> {
> struct xfs_mount *mp = ip->i_mount;
> + unsigned long default_size = max_t(unsigned long, PAGE_SIZE,
> + mp->m_sb.sb_blocksize);
Nit: wonky indentation, but...
>
> /*
> * If the file blocks are being allocated from a realtime volume, then
> @@ -543,7 +545,7 @@ xfs_stat_blksize(
> return 1U << mp->m_allocsize_log;
> }
>
> - return PAGE_SIZE;
> + return default_size;
..why not return max_t(...) directly here?
--D
> }
>
> STATIC int
> --
> 2.43.0
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists