From: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@redhat.com>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
Cc: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, hch@lst.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dm-table: check BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES inside limits_lock
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 12:25:21 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aD3QccNaBXLQ2xPP@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d9d13fea-e75f-4fa4-86c8-dc7053a553b9@oracle.com>
On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 11:08:46AM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> On 30/05/2025 15:50, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
>
> +
>
> > dm_set_device_limits() should check q->limits.features for
> > BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES while holding q->limits_lock, like it does for
> > the rest of the queue limits.
> >
> > Fixes: b7c18b17a173 ("dm-table: Set BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES for target queue limits")
> > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@redhat.com>
>
> In itself, the change seems fine, but I have doubts whether it's preferred
> to even grab the q->limits_lock outside block layer / its helpers.
I'm pretty sure Mikulas added the q->limits_lock around DM's queue
limits accesses as the result of a discussion with some block layer
developers.
>
> And, apart from this, if the bottom device limits change later, do we
> actually trigger a top device limits evaluation update?
DM will obviously re-evaluate the limits if you reload the table. In
some cases, DM will also disable features if turns out that they aren't
supported when it actually tries to use them. Dumb question: Is there
much chance of a SCSI device's atomic write support changing while it's
in-use?
-Ben
> > ---
> > drivers/md/dm-table.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-table.c b/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> > index 57573e8b5aa9..9f95f77687ef 100644
> > --- a/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> > +++ b/drivers/md/dm-table.c
> > @@ -430,13 +430,13 @@ static int dm_set_device_limits(struct dm_target *ti, struct dm_dev *dev,
> > return 0;
> > }
> > + mutex_lock(&q->limits_lock);
> > /*
> > * BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES is not inherited from the bottom device in
> > * blk_stack_limits(), so do it manually.
> > */
> > limits->features |= (q->limits.features & BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES);
> > - mutex_lock(&q->limits_lock);
> > if (blk_stack_limits(limits, &q->limits,
> > get_start_sect(bdev) + start) < 0)
> > DMWARN("%s: adding target device %pg caused an alignment inconsistency: "
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-02 16:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-30 14:50 [PATCH] dm-table: check BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES inside limits_lock Benjamin Marzinski
2025-06-02 10:08 ` John Garry
2025-06-02 16:25 ` Benjamin Marzinski [this message]
2025-06-03 7:57 ` John Garry
2025-06-03 16:05 ` Benjamin Marzinski
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=aD3QccNaBXLQ2xPP@redhat.com \
--to=bmarzins@redhat.com \
--cc=dm-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).