From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] loop: Enable correct physical blocksize
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 15:57:33 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <x49wptl4nya.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1447143190-44589-2-git-send-email-hare@suse.de> (Hannes Reinecke's message of "Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:13:07 +0100")
Hi Hannes,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> writes:
> When running on files the physical blocksize is actually 4k,
How did you come to that conclusion? Are you basing it on the file
system block size? If so, that's configurable at mkfs time and can be
anything from 512 bytes to 64k on current in-tree file systems that I
know of (depending on platform, of course).
The main use for physical block size, as I understand it, is to allow
partitioning utilities to place partitions on physical block boundaries
of the underlying storage. The benefit of that is to avoid
read-modify-writes for I/O which is naturally sized and aligned. If we
carry that forward to loop, then I think it does makes sense to key off
of the file system block size, but the fact remains that 4k is not
universal.
So, I think the idea is sound, but you should be setting the physical
block size to sb->s_blocksize. And I don't see any reason why we
wouldn't do this by default, do you?
If you end up reposting this patch, would you mind including more of
this rationale in your commit message?
Thanks!
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-13 20:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-10 8:13 [PATCHv3 0/4] loop: enable different physical blocksizes Hannes Reinecke
2015-11-10 8:13 ` [PATCH 1/4] loop: Enable correct physical blocksize Hannes Reinecke
2015-11-13 20:57 ` Jeff Moyer [this message]
2015-12-01 9:32 ` Hannes Reinecke
2015-11-20 3:12 ` Ming Lei
2015-11-10 8:13 ` [PATCH 2/4] loop: Remove unused 'bdev' argument from loop_set_capacity Hannes Reinecke
2015-11-13 20:59 ` Jeff Moyer
2015-11-10 8:13 ` [PATCH 3/4] loop: Add 'lo_logical_blocksize' Hannes Reinecke
2015-11-10 8:13 ` [PATCH 4/4] loop: Pass logical blocksize in 'lo_init[0]' ioctl field Hannes Reinecke
2015-11-13 21:42 ` Jeff Moyer
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-07-17 7:27 [PATCH 0/4] loop: enable different physical blocksizes Hannes Reinecke
2015-07-17 7:27 ` [PATCH 1/4] loop: Enable correct physical blocksize Hannes Reinecke
2015-07-27 5:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2015-07-27 5:59 ` Hannes Reinecke
2015-08-07 7:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=x49wptl4nya.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com \
--to=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=agraf@suse.com \
--cc=axboe@fb.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tom.leiming@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®