From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D16052ED871 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 17:14:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763572457; cv=none; b=N8D6l4BptBHY/AxHaDFUqpZC2s3M0ujvq0xej8FPZCW7mdYidHIC0vEdhrYP1xguhJmErn8fU4uwsvlMXX5j+V9FzgGGo4W3ge4vChaeKO+ctHqYv2dEGqBspvjX4NJhvngDaAymB00qmVWVdfymIcZhoCbdybGqYqrbNaKvShA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763572457; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Fo5HvjUQhUkh6IZ71afeExcK/YeZ6Ox9kIytVIdPCaM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=fm9mjVEUhy45mtV7DkSFVDNJXsn7ETrksQnXmfK5xHfjcFAcX4SVYIlVUG/GvaY3FW1m+KAqcZDZoz4E39SKtG3XNxbqS/yduNkkENmu4SqtcVOp2FfXRIeU+QjEttPyVuSQACJQAynD2/incuaDg0pfKZvkFnSuCRGS7Dg0LPU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=A/CPMQDC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="A/CPMQDC" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1763572454; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=pr6IQs5FpCTaJW+P4yZyIURBTeOI7apzV+Rg15XBRt8=; b=A/CPMQDCV5ugNbFQ8G/Di9avMcHo6uc2eKGUBe/1N+JW2YGV7oKN6P3tQP7xk79CFb/KOC xAXtDR2BgPMWAoqq5v1DxIWdp9dKxc6GN6x6RL7VyUWs9Gw3RYiNEZt3AKpJyiCtXmryZL pg0lZoQm3eIkpZdRhPYWTNU+FwqakI8= Received: from mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-614-ymqT71PbOuSTQ_4liC8Kzw-1; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 12:14:09 -0500 X-MC-Unique: ymqT71PbOuSTQ_4liC8Kzw-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: ymqT71PbOuSTQ_4liC8Kzw_1763572448 Received: from mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.93]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6C38195609E; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 17:14:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.44.32.60] (unknown [10.44.32.60]) by mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0ECF18004A3; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 17:14:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 18:13:56 +0100 (CET) From: Mikulas Patocka To: Christoph Hellwig cc: Benjamin Marzinski , "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" , Alasdair Kergon , DMML , Andrew Morton , Mike Snitzer , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] dm-bufio: align write boundary on bdev_logical_block_size In-Reply-To: <20251119054524.GA19993@lst.de> Message-ID: References: <20251020123350.2671495-1-urezki@gmail.com> <20251119054524.GA19993@lst.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.93 On Wed, 19 Nov 2025, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 06:45:55PM +0100, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > I changed the patch below, so that it aligns write bios on > > max3(DM_BUFIO_WRITE_ALIGN, bdev_logical_block_size(b->c->bdev), > > bdev_physical_block_size(b->c->bdev)); - so that if physical block size is > > greater than logical block size, the writes are aligned so that the device > > doesn't do read-modify-write. > > That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The physical block size must > be >= logical block size, and the block enforces that. OK, so I changed it to max(DM_BUFIO_WRITE_ALIGN, bdev_physical_block_size(b->c->bdev)) Mikulas