On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 05:31:58PM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> On 6/21/18 3:49 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 02:26:45PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> On 6/21/18 2:15 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> >>> On 6/20/18 11:57 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:55:20PM -0400, jeffm@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>>> From: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@xxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Commit 051b4e37f5e (mkfs: factor AG alignment) factored out the
> >>>>> AG alignment code into a separate function. It got rid of
> >>>>> redundant checks for dswidth != 0 but did too good a job since now
> >>>>> it doesn't check at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course they got removed - we've already validated the CLI input
> >>>> and guaranteed that cfg->dswidth can only be zero iff cfg->dsunit is
> >>>> zero in calc_stripe_factors().
> >>>>
> >>>> i.e. We do input validation of CLI paramters before anything else so
> >>>> that later users (like align_ag_geometry()) can assume the
> >>>> parameters they are using are valid. In this case, the assumption is
> >>>> that either both dsunit and dswidth are zero or that both are
> >>>> non-zero and dswidth an integer multple of dsunit.
> >>>
> >>> It's not coming from the CLI parameters. It's coming from the topology.
> >>> The blkid topology stuff is returning 8k for minimal i/o and 0 for
> >>> optimal. Without a CLI config, we have dunit=0 in calc_stripe_factors,
> >>> which takes it from the device. We set cfg->dsunit=16 and
> >>> cfg->dswidth=0, and then head down to align_ag_geometry.
> >>>
> >>> The topology on this system looks like:
> >>>
> >>> ft = {dsunit = 16, dswidth = 0, rtswidth = 0, lsectorsize = 512,
> >>>
> >>> psectorsize = 512}
> >>> That matches with a few of the dm targets I see reported on this system.
> >
> > Exactly what kind of dm device does that - we've never had anyone
> > report this before? Also, if it's a dm device, shouldn't it
> > also be fixed to output a sane set of IO characteristics in /sys?
>
> It's multipath, so it just follows the stacking rules. The underlying
> SCSI devices report the same numbers. The optimal io number is
> documented as being optional, at least for the kernel, so we need to
> handle it being 0 anyway. I'm not sure if the device specifying a
> minimum i/o size larger than the sector size and also not specifying an
> optimal i/o size is valid SCSI. I'll ask for more information since now
> I'm also curious.
Ah, so it came from the hardware? In that case, we probably
shouldn't zero sunit when blkid reports this whacky case. i.e. I
think we should set swidth = sunit so that we retain allocation
alignment to the minimum IO size the device specified.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
