From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
To: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Cc: Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>, DMML <dm-devel@lists.linux.dev>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dm-bufio: align write boundary on bdev_logical_block_size
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 11:24:25 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b791d8e8-5e30-b50c-04ca-e823c0a06747@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aQDCmAPfpIGZiceo@milan>
On Tue, 28 Oct 2025, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 09:47:40AM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > Sorry i have missed you email for unknown reason to me. It is
> > probably because you answered to email with different subject
> > i sent initially.
> >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2025, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > >
> > > > When performing a read-modify-write(RMW) operation, any modification
> > > > to a buffered block must cause the entire buffer to be marked dirty.
> > > >
> > > > Marking only a subrange as dirty is incorrect because the underlying
> > > > device block size(ubs) defines the minimum read/write granularity. A
> > > > lower device can perform I/O only on regions which are fully aligned
> > > > and sized to ubs.
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I think it would be better to fix this in dm-bufio, so that other dm-bufio
> > > users would also benefit from the fix. Please try this patch - does it fix
> > > it?
> > >
> > If it solves what i describe i do not mind :)
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
> > >
> > > There may be devices with logical block size larger than 4k. Fix
> > > dm-bufio, so that it will align I/O on logical block size. This commit
> > > fixes I/O errors on the dm-ebs target on the top of emulated nvme device
> > > with 8k logical block size created with qemu parameters:
> > >
> > > -device nvme,drive=drv0,serial=foo,logical_block_size=8192,physical_block_size=8192
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/md/dm-bufio.c | 9 +++++----
> > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/md/dm-bufio.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/md/dm-bufio.c 2025-10-13 21:42:47.000000000 +0200
> > > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/md/dm-bufio.c 2025-10-20 14:40:32.000000000 +0200
> > > @@ -1374,7 +1374,7 @@ static void submit_io(struct dm_buffer *
> > > {
> > > unsigned int n_sectors;
> > > sector_t sector;
> > > - unsigned int offset, end;
> > > + unsigned int offset, end, align;
> > >
> > > b->end_io = end_io;
> > >
> > > @@ -1388,9 +1388,10 @@ static void submit_io(struct dm_buffer *
> > > b->c->write_callback(b);
> > > offset = b->write_start;
> > > end = b->write_end;
> > > - offset &= -DM_BUFIO_WRITE_ALIGN;
> > > - end += DM_BUFIO_WRITE_ALIGN - 1;
> > > - end &= -DM_BUFIO_WRITE_ALIGN;
> > > + align = max(DM_BUFIO_WRITE_ALIGN, bdev_logical_block_size(b->c->bdev));
> >
> Should it be physical_block_size of device? It is a min_io the device
> can perform. The point is, a user sets "ubs" size which should correspond
> to the smallest I/O the device can write, i.e. physically.
physical_block_size is unreliable - some SSDs report physical block size
512 bytes, some 4k. Regardless of what they report, all current SSDs have
4k sector size internally and they do slow read-modify-write cycle on
requests that are not aligned on 4k boundary.
Mikulas
> --
> Uladzislau Rezki
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-29 10:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-20 12:33 [PATCH v2] dm-ebs: Mark full buffer dirty even on partial write Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2025-10-20 12:48 ` [PATCH] dm-bufio: align write boundary on bdev_logical_block_size Mikulas Patocka
2025-10-28 8:47 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-10-28 13:18 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-10-29 10:24 ` Mikulas Patocka [this message]
2025-10-29 13:06 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-11-10 10:26 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-11-18 4:00 ` Benjamin Marzinski
2025-11-18 11:15 ` Mikulas Patocka
2025-11-18 12:42 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2025-11-18 17:45 ` Mikulas Patocka
2025-11-18 20:36 ` Benjamin Marzinski
2025-11-19 5:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-11-19 17:13 ` Mikulas Patocka
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=b791d8e8-5e30-b50c-04ca-e823c0a06747@redhat.com \
--to=mpatocka@redhat.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dm-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=urezki@gmail.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®