Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:54:08 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: on st_blksize value Message-ID: <4BB36210.5040102@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4BA8CD21.3000803@freebsd.org> References: <4BA8CD21.3000803@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 23/03/2010 16:16 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> First, what I am proposing:
> --- a/sys/kern/vfs_vnops.c
> +++ b/sys/kern/vfs_vnops.c
> @@ -790,11 +790,11 @@ vn_stat(vp, sb, active_cred, file_cred, td)
> * to file"
> * Default to PAGE_SIZE after much discussion.
> * XXX: min(PAGE_SIZE, vp->v_bufobj.bo_bsize) may be more correct.
> */
>
> - sb->st_blksize = PAGE_SIZE;
> + sb->st_blksize = max(PAGE_SIZE, vap->va_blocksize);
If no one has objections, suggestions or opinions, I am going to commit this.
I will probably change the scary comment too.
>
> sb->st_flags = vap->va_flags;
> if (priv_check(td, PRIV_VFS_GENERATION))
> sb->st_gen = 0;
> else
>
> Explanation:
> 1. IMO it is not nice that we totally ignore va_blocksize value that can be set by
> a filesystem. This takes away flexibility. That va_blocksize value might really
> turn out to be optimal given the filesystem implementation.
> 2. As currently st_blksize is always PAGE_SIZE, it is playing safe to not use any
> smaller value. For some case this might not be optimal (which I personally
> doubt), but at least nothing should get broken.
>
> One practical benefit can be with ZFS: if a filesystem has recordsize > PAGE_SIZE
> (e.g. default 128K) and it has checksums or compression enabled, then
> (over-)writing in blocks smaller than recordsize would require reading of a whole
> record first. And some applications do use st_blksize as a hint (just for the
> record: some other use f_iosize instead, and yet some use a hardcoded value).
> BTW, some torrent-like applications can serve as a good example of applications
> that overwrite chunks of existing files.
>
> Additionally, here's a little bit of history that explains the PAGE_SIZE ("much
> discussion") comment in vn_stat. It seems that the comment may be misleading
> nowadays.
> It was introduced in r89784 and at that time it applied only to the case of
> non-VREG and non-vn_isdisk vnodes.
> Then, almost 3 years later, in revision 136966 code for VREG vnodes and vn_isdisk
> vnodes was dropped, the XXX comment was introduced, and we ended up with the
> current state of matters.
>
> BTW, I am not sure about the XXX comment either.
> Using bo_bsize may be a nice shortcut, but it would also take away some
> flexibility. Filesystems can already set bo_bsize and va_blocksize to the same
> value, but there could be special cases where they not need be the same.
>
> Thanks a lot for opinions and suggestions!
>
> P.S. Yes, I have read the following interesting thread _completely_:
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2007-May/003155.html
> And this one too:
> http://freebsd.monkey.org/freebsd-fs/200810/msg00059.html
> Unfortunately, the discussions didn't result in any action.
>
--
Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4BB36210.5040102>