From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
Marco Patalano <mpatalan@redhat.com>,
Ewan Milne <emilne@redhat.com>,
linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: dm: retain stacked max_sectors when setting queue_limits
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 09:52:40 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zk6haNVa5JXxlOf1@fedora> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Zk4h-6f2M0XmraJV@kernel.org>
On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 12:48:59PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 04:24:58PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 10:51:17PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > Otherwise, blk_validate_limits() will throw-away the max_sectors that
> > > was stacked from underlying device(s). In doing so it can set a
> > > max_sectors limit that violates underlying device limits.
> >
> > Hmm, yes it sort of is "throwing the limit away", but it really
> > recalculates it from max_hw_sectors, max_dev_sectors and user_max_sectors.
>
> Yes, but it needs to do that recalculation at each level of a stacked
> device. And then we need to combine them via blk_stack_limits() -- as
> is done with the various limits stacking loops in
> drivers/md/dm-table.c:dm_calculate_queue_limits
This way looks one stacking specific requirement, just wondering why not
put the logic into blk_validate_limits() by passing 'stacking' parameter?
Then raid can benefit from it oo.
thanks,
Ming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-23 1:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-22 2:51 [PATCH] dm: retain stacked max_sectors when setting queue_limits Mike Snitzer
2024-05-22 14:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-22 16:48 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-22 17:37 ` Ewan Milne
2024-05-23 1:52 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2024-05-23 15:38 ` [PATCH for-6.10-rc1] block: fix blk_validate_limits() to properly handle stacked devices Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23 15:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-23 15:48 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23 15:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-23 16:38 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23 17:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-23 17:14 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23 7:16 ` dm: retain stacked max_sectors when setting queue_limits Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-23 8:27 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-23 14:12 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23 14:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-23 15:44 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23 15:50 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-23 16:44 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-05-23 17:03 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-05-22 20:33 ` [PATCH] " Ewan Milne
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=Zk6haNVa5JXxlOf1@fedora \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=dm-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=emilne@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mpatalan@redhat.com \
--cc=snitzer@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.