All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Increase BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS_CAP
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 22:52:23 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aFGBJwK-doBF6fBz@fedora> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250617063430.668899-1-dlemoal@kernel.org>

On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 03:34:30PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> Back in 2015, commit d2be537c3ba3 ("block: bump BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS to
> 2560") increased the default maximum size of a block device I/O to 2560
> sectors (1280 KiB) to "accommodate a 10-data-disk stripe write with
> chunk size 128k". This choice is rather arbitrary and since then,
> improvements to the block layer have software RAID drivers correctly
> advertize their stripe width through chunk_sectors and abuses of
> BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS_CAP by drivers (to set the HW limit rather than the
> default user controlled maximum I/O size) have been fixed.
> 
> Since many block devices can benefit from a larger value of
> BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS_CAP, and in particular HDDs, increase this value to
> be 4MiB, or 8192 sectors.
> 
> Suggested-by: Martin K . Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
> ---
>  include/linux/blkdev.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> index 85aab8bc96e7..7c35b2462048 100644
> --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
> +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> @@ -1238,7 +1238,7 @@ enum blk_default_limits {
>   * Not to be confused with the max_hw_sector limit that is entirely
>   * controlled by the driver, usually based on hardware limits.
>   */
> -#define BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS_CAP	2560u
> +#define BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS_CAP	8192u

The change itself looks good, but the definition should belong to block
layer internal, so why not move it into internal header?


thanks,
Ming


  reply	other threads:[~2025-06-17 14:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-06-17  6:34 [PATCH] block: Increase BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS_CAP Damien Le Moal
2025-06-17 14:52 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2025-06-18  1:40   ` Damien Le Moal
2025-06-18  1:37 ` Martin K. Petersen
2025-06-18  4:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-18  5:11   ` Damien Le Moal

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=aFGBJwK-doBF6fBz@fedora \
    --to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=dlemoal@kernel.org \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.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.