From: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
To: agk@redhat.com, snitzer@kernel.org, mpatocka@redhat.com,
song@kernel.org, yukuai3@huawei.com, hch@lst.de,
nilay@linux.ibm.com, axboe@kernel.dk
Cc: dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
ojaswin@linux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com,
John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
Subject: [PATCH RFC 4/4] block: use chunk_sectors when evaluating stacked atomic write limits
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 15:08:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250605150857.4061971-5-john.g.garry@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250605150857.4061971-1-john.g.garry@oracle.com>
The atomic write unit max is limited by any stack device stripe size.
It is required that the atomic write unit is a power-of-2 factor of the
stripe size.
Currently we use io_min limit to hold the stripe size, and check for a
io_min <= SECTOR_SIZE when deciding if we have a striped stacked device.
Nilay reports that this causes a problem when the physical block size is
greater than SECTOR_SIZE [0].
Furthermore, io_min may be mutated when stacking devices, and this makes
it a poor candidate to hold the stripe size. Such an example would be
when the io_min is less than the physical block size.
Use chunk_sectors to hold the stripe size, which is more appropriate.
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/888f3b1d-7817-4007-b3b3-1a2ea04df771@linux.ibm.com/T/#mecca17129f72811137d3c2f1e477634e77f06781
Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
---
block/blk-settings.c | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-settings.c b/block/blk-settings.c
index a000daafbfb4..5b0f1a854e81 100644
--- a/block/blk-settings.c
+++ b/block/blk-settings.c
@@ -594,11 +594,13 @@ static bool blk_stack_atomic_writes_boundary_head(struct queue_limits *t,
static bool blk_stack_atomic_writes_head(struct queue_limits *t,
struct queue_limits *b)
{
+ unsigned int chunk_size = t->chunk_sectors << SECTOR_SHIFT;
+
if (b->atomic_write_hw_boundary &&
!blk_stack_atomic_writes_boundary_head(t, b))
return false;
- if (t->io_min <= SECTOR_SIZE) {
+ if (!t->chunk_sectors) {
/* No chunk sectors, so use bottom device values directly */
t->atomic_write_hw_unit_max = b->atomic_write_hw_unit_max;
t->atomic_write_hw_unit_min = b->atomic_write_hw_unit_min;
@@ -617,12 +619,12 @@ static bool blk_stack_atomic_writes_head(struct queue_limits *t,
* aligned with both limits, i.e. 8K in this example.
*/
t->atomic_write_hw_unit_max = b->atomic_write_hw_unit_max;
- while (t->io_min % t->atomic_write_hw_unit_max)
+ while (chunk_size % t->atomic_write_hw_unit_max)
t->atomic_write_hw_unit_max /= 2;
t->atomic_write_hw_unit_min = min(b->atomic_write_hw_unit_min,
t->atomic_write_hw_unit_max);
- t->atomic_write_hw_max = min(b->atomic_write_hw_max, t->io_min);
+ t->atomic_write_hw_max = min(b->atomic_write_hw_max, chunk_size);
return true;
}
--
2.31.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-05 15:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-05 15:08 [PATCH RFC 0/4] block: set chunk_sectors from stacked dev stripe size John Garry
2025-06-05 15:08 ` [PATCH RFC 1/4] md/raid0: set chunk_sectors limit John Garry
2025-06-05 15:08 ` [PATCH RFC 2/4] md/raid10: " John Garry
2025-06-05 15:08 ` [PATCH RFC 3/4] dm-stripe: limit chunk_sectors to the stripe size John Garry
2025-06-06 15:16 ` Nilay Shroff
2025-06-12 10:01 ` John Garry
2025-06-09 15:19 ` Mikulas Patocka
2025-06-12 9:15 ` John Garry
2025-06-05 15:08 ` John Garry [this message]
2025-06-06 15:23 ` [PATCH RFC 4/4] block: use chunk_sectors when evaluating stacked atomic write limits Nilay Shroff
2025-06-12 9:17 ` John Garry
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250605150857.4061971-5-john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--to=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dm-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
--cc=nilay@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=ojaswin@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=snitzer@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yukuai3@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®