[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241001084302.GD20648@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 10:43:02 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
brauner@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jack@...e.cz,
dchinner@...hat.com, hch@....de, cem@...nel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
hare@...e.de, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
catherine.hoang@...cle.com, mcgrof@...nel.org,
ritesh.list@...il.com, ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/7] xfs: Support atomic write for statx
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 09:37:16AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Ok, so we're only supporting untorn writes if they're exactly the fs
> blocksize, and 1 fsblock is between awu_min/max. That simplifies a lot
> of things. :)
>
> Not supporting sub-fsblock atomic writes means that we'll never hit the
> directio COW fallback code, which uses the pagecache.
>
> Not supporting multi-fsblock atomic writes means that you don't have to
> figure out how to ensure that we always do cow on forcealign
> granularity. Though as I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, that's a
> forcealign problem.
It does simplify things a lot, and is probably a good idea for
the initial version. But I suspect support for atomic writes
smaller than the block size will be really useful and we should
eventually support them, but maybe now on reflinked files or
alwayscow.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists