On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 07:07:53AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 08:48:21PM +0800, Long Li wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 11:12:47AM +0100, John Garry wrote: > > > On 17/09/2024 23:27, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > # xfs_bmap -vvp mnt/file > > > > > mnt/file: > > > > > EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE AG AG-OFFSET TOTAL FLAGS > > > > > 0: [0..15]: 384..399 0 (384..399) 16 010000 > > > > > 1: [16..31]: 400..415 0 (400..415) 16 000000 > > > > > 2: [32..127]: 416..511 0 (416..511) 96 010000 > > > > > 3: [128..255]: 256..383 0 (256..383) 128 000000 > > > > > FLAG Values: > > > > > 0010000 Unwritten preallocated extent > > > > > > > > > > Here we have unaligned extents wrt extsize. > > > > > > > > > > The sub-alloc unit zeroing would solve that - is that what you would still > > > > > advocate (to solve that issue)? > > > > Yes, I thought that was already implemented for force-align with the > > > > DIO code via the extsize zero-around changes in the iomap code. Why > > > > isn't that zero-around code ensuring the correct extent layout here? > > > > > > I just have not included the extsize zero-around changes here. They were > > > just grouped with the atomic writes support, as they were added specifically > > > for the atomic writes support. Indeed - to me at least - it is strange that > > > the DIO code changes are required for XFS forcealign implementation. And, > > > even if we use extsize zero-around changes for DIO path, what about buffered > > > IO? > > > > > > I've been reviewing and testing the XFS atomic write patch series. Since > > there haven't been any new responses to the previous discussions on this > > issue, I'd like to inquire about the buffered IO problem with force-aligned > > files, which is a scenario we might encounter. > > > > Consider a case where the file supports force-alignment with a 64K extent size, > > and the system page size is 4K. Take the following commands as an example: > > > > xfs_io -c "pwrite 64k 64k" mnt/file > > xfs_io -c "pwrite 8k 8k" mnt/file > > > > If unaligned unwritten extents are not permitted, we need to zero out the > > sub-allocation units for ranges [0, 8K] and [16K, 64K] to prevent stale > > data. While this can be handled relatively easily in direct I/O scenarios, > > it presents significant challenges in buffered I/O operations. The main > > difficulty arises because the extent size (64K) is larger than the page > > size (4K), and our current code base has substantial limitations in handling > > such cases. > > > > Any thoughts on this? > > Large folios in the page cache solve this problem. i.e. it's the > same problem that block size > page size support had to solve. > > Thanks for your reply, it cleared up my confusion. So maybe we need to set a minimum folio order for force-aligned inodes, just like Large block sizes (LBS). Thanks, Long Li
