From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc: Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
"linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>,
"dm-devel@redhat.com" <dm-devel@redhat.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Improve io_opt limit stacking
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 09:36:18 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <yq1ftbsp06e.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yq1lflkp0b9.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com> (Martin K. Petersen's message of "Fri, 22 May 2020 09:28:36 -0400")
>>> + if (t->io_opt & (t->physical_block_size - 1))
>>> + t->io_opt = lcm(t->io_opt, t->physical_block_size);
>
>> Any comment on this patch ? Note: the patch the patch "nvme: Fix
>> io_opt limit setting" is already queued for 5.8.
>
> Setting io_opt to the physical block size is not correct.
Oh, missed the lcm(). But I'm still concerned about twiddling io_opt to
a value different than the one reported by an underlying device.
Setting io_opt to something that's less than a full stripe width in a
RAID, for instance, doesn't produce the expected result. So I think I'd
prefer not to set io_opt at all if it isn't consistent across all the
stacked devices.
Let me chew on it for a bit...
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
"linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
"dm-devel@redhat.com" <dm-devel@redhat.com>,
Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Improve io_opt limit stacking
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 09:36:18 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <yq1ftbsp06e.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yq1lflkp0b9.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com> (Martin K. Petersen's message of "Fri, 22 May 2020 09:28:36 -0400")
>>> + if (t->io_opt & (t->physical_block_size - 1))
>>> + t->io_opt = lcm(t->io_opt, t->physical_block_size);
>
>> Any comment on this patch ? Note: the patch the patch "nvme: Fix
>> io_opt limit setting" is already queued for 5.8.
>
> Setting io_opt to the physical block size is not correct.
Oh, missed the lcm(). But I'm still concerned about twiddling io_opt to
a value different than the one reported by an underlying device.
Setting io_opt to something that's less than a full stripe width in a
RAID, for instance, doesn't produce the expected result. So I think I'd
prefer not to set io_opt at all if it isn't consistent across all the
stacked devices.
Let me chew on it for a bit...
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
_______________________________________________
linux-nvme mailing list
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-22 13:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-14 6:58 [PATCH] block: Improve io_opt limit stacking Damien Le Moal
2020-05-14 6:58 ` Damien Le Moal
2020-05-22 7:27 ` Damien Le Moal
2020-05-22 7:27 ` Damien Le Moal
2020-05-22 13:28 ` Martin K. Petersen
2020-05-22 13:28 ` Martin K. Petersen
2020-05-22 13:36 ` Martin K. Petersen [this message]
2020-05-22 13:36 ` Martin K. Petersen
2020-05-22 14:14 ` Keith Busch
2020-05-22 14:14 ` Keith Busch
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=yq1ftbsp06e.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com \
--to=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.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.