Re: [PATCH RFC 3/5] dm-table: Atomic writes support

[Mike Snitzer <snitzer@hammerspace.com>]

On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 12:41:17PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> Support stacking atomic write limits for DM devices.
> 
> All the pre-existing code in blk_stack_atomic_writes_limits() already takes
> care of finding the aggregate limits from the bottom devices.
> 
> Feature flag DM_TARGET_ATOMIC_WRITES is introduced so that atomic writes
> can be enabled on personalities selectively. This is to ensure that atomic
> writes are only enabled when verified to be working properly (for a
> specific personality). In addition, it just may not make sense to enable
> atomic writes on some personalities (so this flag also helps there).
> 
> When testing for bottom device atomic writes support, only the bdev
> queue limits are tested. There is no need to test the bottom bdev
> start sector (like which bdev_can_atomic_write() does), as this would
> already be checked in the dm_calculate_queue_limits() -> ..
> iterate_devices() -> dm_set_device_limits() -> blk_stack_limits()
> callchain.
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
> ---
>  drivers/md/dm-table.c         | 12 ++++++++++++
>  include/linux/device-mapper.h |  3 +++
>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-table.c b/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> index bd8b796ae683..1e0b7e364546 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> @@ -1593,6 +1593,7 @@ int dm_calculate_queue_limits(struct dm_table *t,
>  	struct queue_limits ti_limits;
>  	unsigned int zone_sectors = 0;
>  	bool zoned = false;
> +	bool atomic_writes = true;
>  
>  	dm_set_stacking_limits(limits);
>  
> @@ -1602,8 +1603,12 @@ int dm_calculate_queue_limits(struct dm_table *t,
>  
>  		if (!dm_target_passes_integrity(ti->type))
>  			t->integrity_supported = false;
> +		if (!dm_target_supports_atomic_writes(ti->type))
> +			atomic_writes = false;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (atomic_writes)
> +		limits->features |= BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES_STACKED;
>  	for (unsigned int i = 0; i < t->num_targets; i++) {
>  		struct dm_target *ti = dm_table_get_target(t, i);
>  
> @@ -1616,6 +1621,13 @@ int dm_calculate_queue_limits(struct dm_table *t,
>  			goto combine_limits;
>  		}
>  
> +		/*
> +		 * dm_set_device_limits() -> blk_stack_limits() considers
> +		 * ti_limits as 'top', so set BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES_STACKED
> +		 * here also.
> +		 */
> +		if (atomic_writes)
> +			ti_limits.features |= BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES_STACKED;
>  		/*
>  		 * Combine queue limits of all the devices this target uses.
>  		 */

You're referring to this code that immediately follows this ^ comment
which stacks up the limits of a target's potential to have N component
data devices:

                ti->type->iterate_devices(ti, dm_set_device_limits,
                                          &ti_limits);

Your comment and redundant feature flag setting is feels wrong.  I'd
expect code comparable to what is done for zoned, e.g.:

                if (!zoned && (ti_limits.features & BLK_FEAT_ZONED)) {
                        /*
                         * After stacking all limits, validate all devices
                         * in table support this zoned model and zone sectors.
                         */
                        zoned = (ti_limits.features & BLK_FEAT_ZONED);
                        zone_sectors = ti_limits.chunk_sectors;
                }

Meaning, for zoned devices, a side-effect of the
ti->type->iterate_devices() call (and N blk_stack_limits calls) is
ti_limits.features having BLK_FEAT_ZONED enabled.  Why wouldn't the same
side-effect happen for BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES_STACKED (speaks to
blk_stack_limits being different/wrong for atomic writes support)?

Just feels not quite right... but I could be wrong, please see if
there is any "there" there ;)

Thanks,
Mike


> diff --git a/include/linux/device-mapper.h b/include/linux/device-mapper.h
> index 8321f65897f3..bcc6d7b69470 100644
> --- a/include/linux/device-mapper.h
> +++ b/include/linux/device-mapper.h
> @@ -299,6 +299,9 @@ struct target_type {
>  #define dm_target_supports_mixed_zoned_model(type) (false)
>  #endif
>  
> +#define DM_TARGET_ATOMIC_WRITES		0x00000400
> +#define dm_target_supports_atomic_writes(type) ((type)->features & DM_TARGET_ATOMIC_WRITES)
> +
>  struct dm_target {
>  	struct dm_table *table;
>  	struct target_type *type;
> -- 
> 2.31.1
>