Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 15 Jun 2022 06:12:04 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/7] statx: add I/O alignment information
Message-ID: <YqnapOLvHDmX/3py@infradead.org>
References: <20220518235011.153058-1-ebiggers@kernel.org>
 <20220518235011.153058-2-ebiggers@kernel.org>
 <YobNXbYnhBiqniTH@magnolia>
 <20220520032739.GB1098723@dread.disaster.area>
 <YqgbuDbdH2OLcbC7@sol.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YqgbuDbdH2OLcbC7@sol.localdomain>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:25:12PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> While working on the man-pages update, I'm having second thoughts about the
> stx_offset_align_optimal field.  Does any filesystem other than XFS actually
> want stx_offset_align_optimal, when st[x]_blksize already exists?  Many network
> filesystems, as well as tmpfs when hugepages are enabled, already report large
> (megabytes) sizes in st[x]_blksize.  And all documentation I looked at (man
> pages for Linux, POSIX, FreeBSD, NetBSD, macOS) documents st_blksize as
> something like "the preferred blocksize for efficient I/O".  It's never
> documented as being limited to PAGE_SIZE, which makes sense because it's not.

Yes.  While st_blksize is utterly misnamed, it has always aways been
the optimal I/O size.

> Perhaps for now we should just add STATX_DIOALIGN instead of STATX_IOALIGN,
> leaving out the stx_offset_align_optimal field?  What do people think?

Yes, this sounds like a good plan.