Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
Message-ID: <e6c7b33c-38ba-402b-abdc-b783d4402402@acm.org>
Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2023 10:34:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/21] block: Add fops atomic write support
Content-Language: en-US
To:     John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>, axboe@kernel.dk,
        kbusch@kernel.org, hch@lst.de, sagi@grimberg.me,
        jejb@linux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, djwong@kernel.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org,
        chandan.babu@oracle.com, dchinner@redhat.com
Cc:     linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, jbongio@google.com,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230929102726.2985188-1-john.g.garry@oracle.com>
 <20230929102726.2985188-11-john.g.garry@oracle.com>
 <17ee1669-5830-4ead-888d-a6a4624b638a@acm.org>
 <5d26fa3b-ec34-bc39-ecfe-4616a04977ca@oracle.com>
 <b7a6f380-c6fa-45e0-b727-ba804c6684e4@acm.org>
 <1adeff8e-e2fe-7dc3-283e-4979f9bd6adc@oracle.com>
 <8e2f4aeb-e00e-453a-9658-b1c4ae352084@acm.org>
 <d981dea1-9851-6511-d101-22ea8d7fd31e@oracle.com>
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <d981dea1-9851-6511-d101-22ea8d7fd31e@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/4/23 02:14, John Garry wrote:
> On 03/10/2023 17:45, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 10/3/23 01:37, John Garry wrote:
>>> I don't think that is_power_of_2(write length) is specific to XFS.
>>
>> I think this is specific to XFS. Can you show me the F2FS code that 
>> restricts the length of an atomic write to a power of two? I haven't 
>> found it. The only power-of-two check that I found in F2FS is the 
>> following (maybe I overlooked something):
>>
>> $ git grep -nH is_power fs/f2fs
>> fs/f2fs/super.c:3914:    if (!is_power_of_2(zone_sectors)) {
> 
> Any usecases which we know of requires a power-of-2 block size.
> 
> Do you know of a requirement for other sizes? Or are you concerned that 
> it is unnecessarily restrictive?
> 
> We have to deal with HW features like atomic write boundary and FS 
> restrictions like extent and stripe alignment transparent, which are 
> almost always powers-of-2, so naturally we would want to work with 
> powers-of-2 for atomic write sizes.
> 
> The power-of-2 stuff could be dropped if that is what people want. 
> However we still want to provide a set of rules to the user to make 
> those HW and FS features mentioned transparent to the user.

Hi John,

My concern is that the power-of-2 requirements are only needed for
traditional filesystems and not for log-structured filesystems (BTRFS,
F2FS, BCACHEFS).

What I'd like to see is that each filesystem declares its atomic write
requirements (in struct address_space_operations?) and that
blkdev_atomic_write_valid() checks the filesystem-specific atomic write
requirements.

Thanks,

Bart.