On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 12:40:15AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 12:09:07PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > Subject: [PATCH] block: fix race between set_blocksize and IO paths > > > > With the new large sector size support, it's now the case that > > set_blocksize needs to change i_blksize and the folio order with no > > folios in the pagecache because the geometry changes cause problems with > > the bufferhead code. > > Urrg. I wish we could just get out of the game of messing with > block device inode settings from file systems. I guess doing it when > using buffer_heads is hard, but file systems without buffer heads > should have a way out of even propagating their block size to the > block device inode. And file systems with buffer heads should probably > not support large folios like this :P Heh. Why does xfs still call set_blocksize, anyway? I can understand why we want to validate the fs sector size is a power of 2, greater than 512, and not smaller than the LBA size; and flushing the dirty bdev pagecache. But do we really need to fiddle with i_blksize or dumping the pagecache? --D
