On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 08:00:10PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 12:16:26PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 10:27:16AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> > > The low-space allocator doesn't honour the alignment requirement, so don't
> > > attempt to even use it (when we have an alignment requirement).
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c | 4 ++++
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
> > > index 30c931b38853..328134c22104 100644
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
> > > @@ -3569,6 +3569,10 @@ xfs_bmap_btalloc_low_space(
> > > {
> > > int error;
> > >
> > > + /* The allocator doesn't honour args->alignment */
> > > + if (args->alignment > 1)
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> >
> > How does this happen?
> >
> > The earlier failing aligned allocations will clear alignment before
> > we get here....
>
> I was thinking the predicate should be xfs_inode_force_align(ip) to save
> me/us from thinking about all the other weird ways args->alignment could
> end up 1.
>
> /* forced-alignment means we don't use low mode */
> if (xfs_inode_force_align(ip))
> return -ENOSPC;
See the email I just wrote about not needing per-inode on-disk state
or even extent size hints for doing allocation for atomic IO. Atomic
write unit alignment is a device parameter (similar to stripe unit)
that applies to context specific allocation requests - it's not an
inode property as such....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
