If the FS has no reflink, then atomic writes greater than 1x block are not
supported. As such, for no reflink it is pointless to accept setting
max_atomic_write when it cannot be supported, so reject max_atomic_write
mount option in this case.
It could be still possible to accept max_atomic_write option of size 1x
block if HW atomics are supported, so check for this specifically.
Fixes: 4528b9052731 ("xfs: allow sysadmins to specify a maximum atomic write limit at mount time")
Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
---
fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
index 0b690bc119d7..1ec70f4e57b4 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
@@ -784,6 +784,25 @@ xfs_set_max_atomic_write_opt(
return -EINVAL;
}
+ if (xfs_has_reflink(mp))
+ goto set_limit;
+
+ if (new_max_fsbs == 1) {
+ if (mp->m_ddev_targp->bt_awu_max ||
+ (mp->m_rtdev_targp && mp->m_rtdev_targp->bt_awu_max)) {
+ } else {
+ xfs_warn(mp,
+ "cannot support atomic writes of size %lluk with no reflink or HW support",
+ new_max_bytes >> 10);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ } else {
+ xfs_warn(mp,
+ "cannot support atomic writes of size %lluk with no reflink support",
+ new_max_bytes >> 10);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
set_limit:
error = xfs_calc_atomic_write_reservation(mp, new_max_fsbs);
if (error) {
--
2.43.5
On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 08:12:15AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> If the FS has no reflink, then atomic writes greater than 1x block are not
> supported. As such, for no reflink it is pointless to accept setting
> max_atomic_write when it cannot be supported, so reject max_atomic_write
> mount option in this case.
>
> It could be still possible to accept max_atomic_write option of size 1x
> block if HW atomics are supported, so check for this specifically.
>
> Fixes: 4528b9052731 ("xfs: allow sysadmins to specify a maximum atomic write limit at mount time")
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
/me wonders if "mkfs: allow users to configure the desired maximum
atomic write size" needs a similar filter?
Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
--D
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> index 0b690bc119d7..1ec70f4e57b4 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> @@ -784,6 +784,25 @@ xfs_set_max_atomic_write_opt(
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> + if (xfs_has_reflink(mp))
> + goto set_limit;
> +
> + if (new_max_fsbs == 1) {
> + if (mp->m_ddev_targp->bt_awu_max ||
> + (mp->m_rtdev_targp && mp->m_rtdev_targp->bt_awu_max)) {
> + } else {
> + xfs_warn(mp,
> + "cannot support atomic writes of size %lluk with no reflink or HW support",
> + new_max_bytes >> 10);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + } else {
> + xfs_warn(mp,
> + "cannot support atomic writes of size %lluk with no reflink support",
> + new_max_bytes >> 10);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> set_limit:
> error = xfs_calc_atomic_write_reservation(mp, new_max_fsbs);
> if (error) {
> --
> 2.43.5
>
>
On 24/07/2025 17:32, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 08:12:15AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>> If the FS has no reflink, then atomic writes greater than 1x block are not
>> supported. As such, for no reflink it is pointless to accept setting
>> max_atomic_write when it cannot be supported, so reject max_atomic_write
>> mount option in this case.
>>
>> It could be still possible to accept max_atomic_write option of size 1x
>> block if HW atomics are supported, so check for this specifically.
>>
>> Fixes: 4528b9052731 ("xfs: allow sysadmins to specify a maximum atomic write limit at mount time")
>> Signed-off-by: John Garry<john.g.garry@oracle.com>
> /me wonders if "mkfs: allow users to configure the desired maximum
> atomic write size" needs a similar filter?
>
Yeah, probably. But I am wondering if we should always require reflink
for setting that max atomic mkfs option, and not have a special case of
HW atomics available for 1x blocksize atomic writes.
> Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong"<djwong@kernel.org>
cheers
On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 09:39:42AM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> On 24/07/2025 17:32, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 08:12:15AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> > > If the FS has no reflink, then atomic writes greater than 1x block are not
> > > supported. As such, for no reflink it is pointless to accept setting
> > > max_atomic_write when it cannot be supported, so reject max_atomic_write
> > > mount option in this case.
> > >
> > > It could be still possible to accept max_atomic_write option of size 1x
> > > block if HW atomics are supported, so check for this specifically.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 4528b9052731 ("xfs: allow sysadmins to specify a maximum atomic write limit at mount time")
> > > Signed-off-by: John Garry<john.g.garry@oracle.com>
> > /me wonders if "mkfs: allow users to configure the desired maximum
> > atomic write size" needs a similar filter?
> >
>
> Yeah, probably. But I am wondering if we should always require reflink for
> setting that max atomic mkfs option, and not have a special case of HW
> atomics available for 1x blocksize atomic writes.
I think that's reasonable for mkfs since reflink=1 has been the default
for quite a long while now.
--D
> > Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong"<djwong@kernel.org>
>
> cheers
>
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.