John Garry <john.g.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 25/10/2024 11:35, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote: >>>> Same as mentioned above. We can't have atomic writes to get split. >>>> This patch is just lifting the restriction of iomap to allow more than >>>> blocksize but the mapped length should still meet iter->len, as >>>> otherwise the writes can get split. >>> Sure, I get this. But I wonder why would we be getting multiple >>> mappings? Why cannot the FS always provide a single mapping? >> FS can decide to split the mappings when it couldn't allocate a single >> large mapping of the requested length. Could be due to - >> - already allocated extent followed by EOF, >> - already allocated extent followed by a hole >> - already mapped extent followed by an extent of different type (e.g. written followed by unwritten or unwritten followed by written) > > This is the sort of scenario which I am concerned with. This issue has > been discussed at length for XFS forcealign support for atomic writes. extsize and forcealign is being worked for ext4 as well where we can add such support, sure. > > So far, the user can atomic write a single FS block regardless of > whether the extent in which it would be part of is in written or > unwritten state. > > Now the rule will be to write multiple FS blocks atomically, all blocks > need to be in same written or unwritten state. FS needs to ensure that the writes does not get torned. So for whatever reason FS splits the mapping then we need to return an -EINVAL error to not allow such writes to get torned. This patch just does that. But I get your point. More below. > > This oddity at least needs to be documented. Got it. Yes, we can do that. > > Better yet would be to not have this restriction. > I haven't thought of a clever way where we don't have to zero out the rest of the unwritten mapping. With ext4 bigalloc since the entire cluster is anyway reserved - I was thinking if we can come up with a clever way for doing atomic writes to the entire user requested size w/o zeroing out. Zeroing out the other unwritten extent is also a cost penalty to the user anyways. So user will anyway will have to be made aware of not to attempt writes of fashion which can cause them such penalties. As patch-6 mentions this is a base support for bs = ps systems for enabling atomic writes using bigalloc. For now we return -EINVAL when we can't allocate a continuous user requested mapping which means it won't support operations of types 8k followed by 16k. We can document this behavior as other things are documented for atomic writes on ext4 with bigalloc e.g. pow_of_2 length writes, natural alignment w.r.t pos and length etc. Does that sound ok? >> - delalloc (not delalloc since we invalidate respective page cache pages before doing DIO). >> - fragmentation or ENOSPC - For ext4 bigalloc this will not happen since >> we reserve the entire cluster. So we know there should be space. But I >> am not sure how other filesystems might end up implementing this functionality. > > Thanks, > John -ritesh
