From: John Garry <john.garry@linux.dev>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <mkp@kernel.org>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] block: cap atomic write size by PI buffer size constraints
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2026 10:19:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <90f94bcd-813d-48f9-a62c-3c703c4a71e6@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260907084621.GA7391@lst.de>
On 9/7/26 09:46, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2026 at 09:09:47AM +0100, John Garry wrote:
>> On 9/7/26 08:40, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> As Sashiko points out,
>>
>> Do you have a reference for that? I'm just curious, as we don't support
>> atomics for integrity writes. Well, for SCSI we don't... we impose this
>> restriction via sd_config_atomic(), I need to check for the same in NVMe...
>
> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260831064010.2574896-1-hch%40lst.de
>
> Search for "atomic".
cheers
So this mentions one issue which Tal addresses in "block: fail atomic
writes instead of falling back to buffered I/O" and how we need to be
wary of fragmented atomics.
As for atomics on disks with integrity support, we decided not to
support SCSI WRITE ATOMIC (32) - this one is relevant to PI type 2.
But, overall, I'm not sure on this - should we always disable atomics
for any disk PI? Is there a use case for the two together? Martin?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-07 9:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-07 7:40 misc block PI / bounce buffering fixes Christoph Hellwig
2026-09-07 7:40 ` [PATCH 1/3] block: avoid integer overflows in max_integrity_io_size Christoph Hellwig
2026-09-07 7:40 ` [PATCH 2/3] block: cap atomic write size by PI buffer size constraints Christoph Hellwig
2026-09-07 8:09 ` John Garry
2026-09-07 8:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-09-07 9:19 ` John Garry [this message]
2026-09-09 2:44 ` Martin K. Petersen
2026-09-09 7:52 ` John Garry
2026-09-09 9:16 ` John Garry
2026-09-10 5:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-09-10 8:45 ` John Garry
2026-09-10 12:52 ` John Garry
2026-09-10 14:43 ` John Garry
2026-09-07 7:40 ` [PATCH 3/3] block: improve aligning down bios in bio_iov_iter_bounce_write Christoph Hellwig
2026-09-09 2:47 ` misc block PI / bounce buffering fixes Martin K. Petersen (Oracle)
2026-09-11 16:41 ` Jens Axboe
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=90f94bcd-813d-48f9-a62c-3c703c4a71e6@linux.dev \
--to=john.garry@linux.dev \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mkp@kernel.org \
/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.