From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Coly Li <i@coly.li>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
colyli@kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>,
Xiao Ni <xni@redhat.com>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.com>, Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] md: split bio by io_opt size in md_submit_bio()
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 13:41:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250716114121.GA32207@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <437E98DD-7D64-49BF-9F2C-04CB0A142A88@coly.li>
On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 07:39:18PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
> >> For raid level 4/5/6 such split method might be problematic and hurt
> >> large read/write perforamnce. Because limits.max_hw_sectors are not
> >> always aligned to limits.io_opt size, the split bio won't be full
> >> stripes covered on all data disks, and will introduce extra read-in I/O.
> >> Even the bio's bi_sector is aligned to limits.io_opt size and large
> >> enough, the resulted split bio is not size-friendly to corresponding
> >> raid456 level.
> >
> > So why don't you set a sane max_hw_sectors value instead of duplicating
> > the splitting logic?
>
> Can you explain a bit more detail? In case I misunderstand you like I
> did with Kuai’s comments
Just set the max_hw_sectors you want.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-16 11:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-15 18:02 [RFC PATCH] md: split bio by io_opt size in md_submit_bio() colyli
2025-07-16 1:46 ` Yu Kuai
2025-07-16 6:58 ` Yu Kuai
2025-07-16 8:50 ` Coly Li
2025-07-16 9:30 ` Yu Kuai
2025-07-16 11:37 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-07-16 11:39 ` Coly Li
2025-07-16 11:41 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2025-07-16 11:44 ` Coly Li
2025-07-16 11:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-07-16 12:10 ` Coly Li
2025-07-16 12:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-07-16 12:16 ` Coly Li
2025-07-16 12:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-07-16 12:23 ` Coly Li
2025-07-16 16:29 ` Yu Kuai
2025-07-17 4:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-07-17 15:19 ` Coly Li
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-07-15 17:59 colyli
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=20250716114121.GA32207@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=colyli@kernel.org \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=i@coly.li \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mwilck@suse.com \
--cc=xni@redhat.com \
--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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.