xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector s

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libxfs: Get Physical Sector Size instead of Logical Sector size
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 02:54:51 -0500
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4ED2C233.8010104@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1322162451-17036-1-git-send-email-cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx> <20111124195042.GA3671@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111127010643.GU2386@dastard> <4ED2C233.8010104@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 05:05:23PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > i.e. do we have any guarantee at all that a PBS sized IO will either
> > wholly complete or wholly fail when PBS != sector size? And if not,
> > why is this a change we should make given it appears to me to
> > violate a fundamental assumption of the filesystem design?
> 
> I had the expectation that physical block size WAS the fundamental/atomic
> IO size for the disk, and anything smaller required read/modify/write.
> So I made this suggestion (and I think hch concurred) so that we weren't
> doing log IOs which required RMW & translation.

Yes, that is how it is defined. 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>