Re: [PATCH v3 08/21] xfs: Introduce FORCEALIGN inode flag

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 12/06/2024 03:10, Long Li wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 05:47:33PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
From: "Darrick J. Wong"<djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>

Add a new inode flag to require that all file data extent mappings must
be aligned (both the file offset range and the allocated space itself)
to the extent size hint.  Having a separate COW extent size hint is no
longer allowed.

The goal here is to enable sysadmins and users to mandate that all space
mappings in a file must have a startoff/blockcount that are aligned to
(say) a 2MB alignment and that the startblock/blockcount will follow the
same alignment.

jpg: Enforce extsize is a power-of-2 and aligned with afgsize + stripe
      alignment for forcealign
Signed-off-by: "Darrick J. Wong"<djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Co-developed-by: John Garry<john.g.garry@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: John Garry<john.g.garry@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h    |  6 ++++-
  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.h |  3 +++
  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c        |  2 ++
  fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c            | 12 +++++++++
  fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h            |  2 +-
  fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c            | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
  fs/xfs/xfs_mount.h            |  2 ++
  fs/xfs/xfs_super.c            |  4 +++
  include/uapi/linux/fs.h       |  2 ++
  10 files changed, 114 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h
index 2b2f9050fbfb..4dd295b047f8 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h
+++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_format.h
@@ -353,6 +353,7 @@ xfs_sb_has_compat_feature(
  #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_RMAPBT   (1 << 1)		/* reverse map btree */
  #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_REFLINK  (1 << 2)		/* reflinked files */
  #define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_INOBTCNT (1 << 3)		/* inobt block counts */
+#define XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_FORCEALIGN (1 << 30)	/* aligned file data extents */
Hi, John

You know I've been using and testing your atomic writes patch series recently,
and I'm particularly interested in the changes to the on-disk format. I noticed
that XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_FORCEALIGN uses bit 30 instead of bit 4, which would
be the next available bit in sequence.

I'm wondering if using bit 30 is just a temporary solution to avoid conflicts,
and if the plan is to eventually use bits sequentially, for example, using bit 4?
I'm looking forward to your explanation.

I really don't know. I'm looking through the history and it has been like that this the start of my source control records.

Maybe it was a copy-and-paste error from XFS_FEAT_FORCEALIGN, whose value has changed since.

Anyway, I'll ask a bit more internally, and I'll look to change to (1 << 4) if ok.

Thanks,
John




[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux