From: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
To: Jason Rahman <jasonrahman@microsoft.com>
Cc: "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Adam Prout <adamprout@microsoft.com>,
Girish Mittur Venkataramanappa <girishmv@microsoft.com>,
"kbusch@meta.com" <kbusch@meta.com>,
James Bottomley <james.bottomley@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: md raid0 Direct IO DMA alignment
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 10:36:49 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aFGZofPWrNMT2rbW@kbusch-mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR2101MB1313AA35D88E8F547132B505A173A@BL0PR2101MB1313.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 02:19:11AM +0000, Jason Rahman wrote:
> It seems that rather than setting dma_alignment to SECTOR_SIZE - 1 in
> md_init_stacking_limits, it should be set to zero, and as
> queue_limits_stack_bdev is called on each backing device, the
> dma_alignment value will be updated to the largest dma_alignment value
> among all backing devices. Are there any thoughts/concerns about
> updating the mddev dma_alignment computation to track the underlying
> backing device more closely, without the minimum SECTOR_SIZE - 1 lower
> bound today?
I believe it should be safe to stack dma alignment to the least common
multiple of the block devices you're stacking. blk_stack_limits already
tries to do that, at least.
So I think you're right, it should be okay to not set the dma_alignemnt
limit when initializing the stacking limits. For any block device who
hasn't set their dma_alignemnt limit, it will default to SECTOR_SIZE - 1
later anyway, so I don't think stacking needs to explicitly initialize
it.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-17 16:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-17 2:19 md raid0 Direct IO DMA alignment Jason Rahman
2025-06-17 3:12 ` Jason Rahman
2025-06-17 16:36 ` Keith Busch [this message]
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=aFGZofPWrNMT2rbW@kbusch-mbp \
--to=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=adamprout@microsoft.com \
--cc=girishmv@microsoft.com \
--cc=james.bottomley@microsoft.com \
--cc=jasonrahman@microsoft.com \
--cc=kbusch@meta.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.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.