Linux block layer
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, martin.petersen@oracle.com,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com,
	jdorminy@redhat.com, bjohnsto@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] block: use gcd() to fix chunk_sectors limit stacking
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 09:12:43 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201204011243.GB661914@T590> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201203143359.GA29261@redhat.com>

On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 09:33:59AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02 2020 at 10:26pm -0500,
> Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 11:07:09AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > commit 22ada802ede8 ("block: use lcm_not_zero() when stacking
> > > chunk_sectors") broke chunk_sectors limit stacking. chunk_sectors must
> > > reflect the most limited of all devices in the IO stack.
> > > 
> > > Otherwise malformed IO may result. E.g.: prior to this fix,
> > > ->chunk_sectors = lcm_not_zero(8, 128) would result in
> > > blk_max_size_offset() splitting IO at 128 sectors rather than the
> > > required more restrictive 8 sectors.
> > 
> > What is the user-visible result of splitting IO at 128 sectors?
> 
> The VDO dm target fails because it requires IO it receives to be split
> as it advertised (8 sectors).

OK, looks VDO's chunk_sector limit is one hard constraint, even though it
is one DM device, so I guess you are talking about DM over VDO?

Another reason should be that VDO doesn't use blk_queue_split(), otherwise it
won't be a trouble, right?

Frankly speaking, if the stacking driver/device has its own hard queue limit
like normal hardware drive, the driver should be responsible for the splitting.

> 
> > I understand it isn't related with correctness, because the underlying
> > queue can split by its own chunk_sectors limit further. So is the issue
> > too many further-splitting on queue with chunk_sectors 8? then CPU
> > utilization is increased? Or other issue?
> 
> No, this is all about correctness.
> 
> Seems you're confining the definition of the possible stacking so that
> the top-level device isn't allowed to have its own hard requirements on

I just don't know this story, thanks for your clarification.

As I mentioned above, if the stacking driver has its own hard queue
limit, it should be the driver's responsibility to respect it via
blk_queue_split() or whatever.


Thanks,
Ming


  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-12-04  1:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-30 17:18 [PATCH] block: revert to using min_not_zero() when stacking chunk_sectors Mike Snitzer
2020-11-30 20:51 ` John Dorminy
2020-11-30 23:24   ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-01  0:21     ` John Dorminy
2020-12-01  2:12       ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-01 16:07 ` [PATCH v2] block: use gcd() to fix chunk_sectors limit stacking Mike Snitzer
2020-12-01 17:43   ` John Dorminy
2020-12-01 17:53   ` Jens Axboe
2020-12-01 18:02   ` Martin K. Petersen
2020-12-02  3:38   ` [PATCH] dm: " Jeffle Xu
2020-12-02  3:38     ` Jeffle Xu
2020-12-02  3:57       ` JeffleXu
2020-12-02  5:03         ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-02  5:14           ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-02  6:31             ` JeffleXu
2020-12-02  6:35               ` JeffleXu
2020-12-02  6:28           ` JeffleXu
2020-12-02  7:10           ` JeffleXu
2020-12-02 15:11             ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-03  1:48               ` [dm-devel] " JeffleXu
2020-12-03  3:26   ` [PATCH v2] block: " Ming Lei
2020-12-03 14:33     ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-03 16:27       ` Keith Busch
2020-12-03 17:56         ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-04  1:45         ` Ming Lei
2020-12-04  2:11           ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-04  6:22             ` [dm-devel] " Damien Le Moal
2020-12-04  1:12       ` Ming Lei [this message]
2020-12-04  2:03         ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-04  3:59           ` Ming Lei
2020-12-04 16:47             ` Mike Snitzer
2020-12-04 17:32               ` [RFC PATCH] dm: fix IO splitting [was: Re: [PATCH v2] block: use gcd() to fix chunk_sectors limit stacking] Mike Snitzer
2020-12-04 17:49                 ` Mike Snitzer

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=20201204011243.GB661914@T590 \
    --to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=bjohnsto@redhat.com \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=jdorminy@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.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