[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cfdbb625-90b8-45d1-838b-bf5b670f49f1@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2024 09:16:22 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>, chandan.babu@...cle.com,
djwong@...nel.org, dchinner@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
catherine.hoang@...cle.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/14] forcealign for xfs
On 23/09/2024 04:33, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 12:57:32PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> Ok, but that's not going to be widespread. Very little storage
>> hardware out there supports atomic writes - the vast majority of
>> deployments will be new hardware that will have mkfs run on it.
>
> Just about every enterprise NVMe SSD supports atomic write size
> larger than a single LBA, because it is completely natural fallout
> from FTL deѕign. That beeing said to support those SSDs a block
> size of 16 or 32k would be a lot more natural than all the forcealign
> madness.
>
Outside the block allocator changes, most changes for forcealign are
just refactoring the RT big alloc unit checks. So - as you have said
previously - this so-called madness is already there. How can the sanity
be improved?
To me, yes, there are so many "if (RT)" checks and special cases in the
code, which makes a maintenance headache.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists