On 7/25/13 9:27 AM, Dwight Engen wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 23:36:38 -0500
> Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 7/24/2013 6:57 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 02:32:08PM -0400, Dwight Engen wrote:
>>>> Tests 091,240, and 268 are failing on my 4k sector hard disk. The
>>>> dio writes from fsx and aiodio_sparse2 are failing on xfs with
>>>> EINVAL which is returned from the check at the top of
>>>> The fix is to use blockdev -getpbsz to get the physical sector
>>>> size instead of the logical sector size. This makes 091 and 268
>>>> work. 240 will not run on a 4k drive since fs block size == device
>>>> block size. Tested against xfs,ext4, and btrfs.
>>> What's the logical sector size of the drive? If it's 4k, then
>>> blockdev --getss should be returning 4k. If it's not, then either
>>> the drive is reporting that it supports 512 bytes sectors when it
>>> doesn't (i.e. the drive is broken) or blockdev is returning the
>>> wrong information (i.e. blockdev is broken)....
> # blockdev --getss /dev/sda
> # blockdev --getpbsz /dev/sda
> So it looks like blockdev is reporting the correct values.
>>> What does mkfs.xfs output on that device?
> mkfs.xfs -f /dev/sda1
> meta-data=/dev/sda1 isize=256 agcount=8, agsize=262144
> blks = sectsz=4096 attr=2, projid32bit=0
> data = bsize=4096 blocks=2097152, imaxpct=25
> = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks
> naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0
> log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=2560, version=2
> = sectsz=4096 sunit=1 blks, lazy-count=1
> realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0
> So mkfs.xfs is reporting sectsz=4096. I added a printf into mkfs.xfs
> right after it is setting sectorsize = ft.psectorsize and saw:
> sectorsize 4096 ft.psectorsize 4096 ft.lsectorsize 512
There was a change to mkfs to make the sectorsize == physical sector size:
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu Mar 1 22:46:35 2012 -0600
mkfs.xfs: properly handle physical sector size
This splits the fs_topology structure "sectorsize" into
logical & physical, and gets both via blkid_get_topology().
This primarily allows us to default to using the physical
sectorsize for mkfs's "sector size" value, the fundamental
size of any IOs the filesystem will perform.
and the rationale was:
* Unless specified manually on the command line use the
+ * advertised sector size of the device. We use the physical
+ * sector size unless the requested block size is smaller
+ * than that, then we can use logical, but warn about the
+ * inefficiency.
So, I hadn't thought about this, but I guess using physical sector size
during mkfs trickles all the way to the DIO tests, and rejects anything
smaller, including otherwise-acceptable smaller logical sector sizes :/
(You can probably mkfs w/ an explicit 512 sector size, and confirm that
512-byte DIOs work again)
bleah, perhaps that was a mistake - or perhaps we need to fix kernelspace
to prefer physical-size IOs, but allow logical-size if a DIO requests it.
>>>> rm -f $TEST_DIR/aiodio_sparse
>>>> -logical_block_size=`blockdev --getss $TEST_DEV`
>>>> +logical_block_size=`blockdev --getpbsz $TEST_DEV`
>>> FWIW, that doesn't make much sense - putting the physical block size
>>> into a variable named "logical_block_size".....
> Yeah, that name wouldn't make much sense with this change. Its actually
> being used to compare to the fs block size and then its passed into
> aiodio_sparse2 as offset. 091 and 268 use the more generic name bsize,
> should I can change it to that?
Well, that was put there with:
Author: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri Feb 11 15:20:02 2011 -0500
240: only run when the file system block size is larger than the disk
This test really wants to test partial file-system block I/Os. Thus, if
the device has a 4K sector size, and the file system has a 4K block
size, there's really no point in running the test. In the attached
patch, I check that the fs block size is larger than the device's
logical block size, which should cover a 4k device block size with a 16k
fs block size.
I verified that the patched test does not run on my 4k sector device
with a 4k file system. I also verified that it continues to run on a
512 byte logical sector device with a 4k file system block size.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
+# This test need only be run in the case where the logical block size
+# of the device can be smaller than the file system block size.
>> AFAIK there are no native 4K sector drives on the market yet. All of
>> the currently shipping models with physical 4K sectors are "Advanced
>> Format" drives. The Advanced Format standard specifies 4K physical
>> sectors -internal- to the drive, but with traditional 512B LBA
>> Dwight, what disk drive is this in question? Make/model?
> Yep its an Advanced Format drive, some relevant lines from dmesg:
> ata1.00: ATA-8: HITACHI HTS725050A7E630, GH2ZB390, max UDMA/133
> scsi 0:0:0:0: Direct-Access ATA HITACHI HTS72505 GH2Z PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
> sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 976773168 512-byte logical blocks: (500 GB/465 GiB)
> sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 4096-byte physical blocks
> xfs mailing list