[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZtFSTBf3uCVMd1v/@li-bb2b2a4c-3307-11b2-a85c-8fa5c3a69313.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 10:32:04 +0530
From: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ext4: Convert EXT4_B2C(sbi->s_stripe) users to
EXT4_NUM_B2C
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 02:58:13PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
>
> > Although we have checks to make sure s_stripe is a multiple of cluster
> > size, in case we accidentally end up with a scenario where this is not
> > the case, use EXT4_NUM_B2C() so that we don't end up with unexpected
> > cases where EXT4_B2C(stripe) becomes 0.
>
> man page of strip=n mount options says...
> stripe=n
> Number of file system blocks that mballoc will try to use
> for allocation size and alignment. For RAID5/6 systems
> this should be the number of data disks * RAID chunk size
> in file system blocks.
>
> ... So stripe is anyways the no. of filesystem blocks. Making it
> EXT4_NUM_B2C() make sense to me.
>
> However, there is one more user that remains in ext4_mb_find_by_goal(),
> right?
Oh right, I'll fix that in v3. Thanks!
>
> -ritesh
>
> >
> > Also make the is_stripe_aligned check in regular_allocator a bit more
> > robust while we are at it. This should ideally have no functional change
> > unless we have a bug somewhere causing (stripe % cluster_size != 0)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 10 ++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists