From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1268C433E2 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 02:04:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5D6208E4 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 02:04:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="OUyaxCPo" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726057AbgIOCEF (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Sep 2020 22:04:05 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-2.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:57948 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726019AbgIOCEE (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Sep 2020 22:04:04 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1600135443; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=fYUJ6d6K7+Gyu6GlffuHiz0GaTO1luxq6mjfS2130II=; b=OUyaxCPoyIs8JFHzzHKUh+yHUyVSvrrTXuyIIKgYoS5JzA3+3DE/R8SKzUww+hiVlWrG8U r0vhL/NZBgPNo3c1hf1pwNagtGYMDwfaGkjmlPpn9sKwgpHN290oH4bHUOE3AOEeRF1n6D SGRZhLKidEFPTbt8wMVRtOfws+wCFJY= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-192-04j_yamGOliXBMNHw2pd-g-1; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 22:04:01 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 04j_yamGOliXBMNHw2pd-g-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9E6B801A9E; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 02:03:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from T590 (ovpn-12-38.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.38]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71CA27EEA7; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 02:03:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 10:03:44 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Damien Le Moal Cc: Mike Snitzer , Vijayendra Suman , "dm-devel@redhat.com" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: fix blk_rq_get_max_sectors() to flow more carefully Message-ID: <20200915020344.GB738570@T590> References: <20200911215338.44805-1-snitzer@redhat.com> <20200911215338.44805-2-snitzer@redhat.com> <20200912135252.GA210077@T590> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 12:43:06AM +0000, Damien Le Moal wrote: > On 2020/09/12 22:53, Ming Lei wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 05:53:36PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > >> blk_queue_get_max_sectors() has been trained for REQ_OP_WRITE_SAME and > >> REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES yet blk_rq_get_max_sectors() didn't call it for > >> those operations. > > > > Actually WRITE_SAME & WRITE_ZEROS are handled by the following if > > chunk_sectors is set: > > > > return min(blk_max_size_offset(q, offset), > > blk_queue_get_max_sectors(q, req_op(rq))); > > > >> Also, there is no need to avoid blk_max_size_offset() if > >> 'chunk_sectors' isn't set because it falls back to 'max_sectors'. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer > >> --- > >> include/linux/blkdev.h | 19 +++++++++++++------ > >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h > >> index bb5636cc17b9..453a3d735d66 100644 > >> --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h > >> +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h > >> @@ -1070,17 +1070,24 @@ static inline unsigned int blk_rq_get_max_sectors(struct request *rq, > >> sector_t offset) > >> { > >> struct request_queue *q = rq->q; > >> + int op; > >> + unsigned int max_sectors; > >> > >> if (blk_rq_is_passthrough(rq)) > >> return q->limits.max_hw_sectors; > >> > >> - if (!q->limits.chunk_sectors || > >> - req_op(rq) == REQ_OP_DISCARD || > >> - req_op(rq) == REQ_OP_SECURE_ERASE) > >> - return blk_queue_get_max_sectors(q, req_op(rq)); > >> + op = req_op(rq); > >> + max_sectors = blk_queue_get_max_sectors(q, op); > >> > >> - return min(blk_max_size_offset(q, offset), > >> - blk_queue_get_max_sectors(q, req_op(rq))); > >> + switch (op) { > >> + case REQ_OP_DISCARD: > >> + case REQ_OP_SECURE_ERASE: > >> + case REQ_OP_WRITE_SAME: > >> + case REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES: > >> + return max_sectors; > >> + }>> + > >> + return min(blk_max_size_offset(q, offset), max_sectors); > >> } > > > > It depends if offset & chunk_sectors limit for WRITE_SAME & WRITE_ZEROS > > needs to be considered. > > That limit is needed for zoned block devices to ensure that *any* write request, > no matter the command, do not cross zone boundaries. Otherwise, the write would > be immediately failed by the device. Looks both blk_bio_write_zeroes_split() and blk_bio_write_same_split() don't consider chunk_sectors limit, is that an issue for zone block? thanks, Ming