From: John Garry <john.garry@linux.dev>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <mkp@kernel.org>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] block: cap atomic write size by PI buffer size constraints
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2026 10:19:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <90f94bcd-813d-48f9-a62c-3c703c4a71e6@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260907084621.GA7391@lst.de>
On 9/7/26 09:46, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2026 at 09:09:47AM +0100, John Garry wrote:
>> On 9/7/26 08:40, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> As Sashiko points out,
>>
>> Do you have a reference for that? I'm just curious, as we don't support
>> atomics for integrity writes. Well, for SCSI we don't... we impose this
>> restriction via sd_config_atomic(), I need to check for the same in NVMe...
>
> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260831064010.2574896-1-hch%40lst.de
>
> Search for "atomic".
cheers
So this mentions one issue which Tal addresses in "block: fail atomic
writes instead of falling back to buffered I/O" and how we need to be
wary of fragmented atomics.
As for atomics on disks with integrity support, we decided not to
support SCSI WRITE ATOMIC (32) - this one is relevant to PI type 2.
But, overall, I'm not sure on this - should we always disable atomics
for any disk PI? Is there a use case for the two together? Martin?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-07 9:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-07 7:40 misc block PI / bounce buffering fixes Christoph Hellwig
2026-09-07 7:40 ` [PATCH 1/3] block: avoid integer overflows in max_integrity_io_size Christoph Hellwig
2026-09-07 7:40 ` [PATCH 2/3] block: cap atomic write size by PI buffer size constraints Christoph Hellwig
2026-09-07 8:09 ` John Garry
2026-09-07 8:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-09-07 9:19 ` John Garry [this message]
2026-09-09 2:44 ` Martin K. Petersen
2026-09-09 7:52 ` John Garry
2026-09-09 9:16 ` John Garry
2026-09-10 5:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-09-10 8:45 ` John Garry
2026-09-10 12:52 ` John Garry
2026-09-10 14:43 ` John Garry
2026-09-07 7:40 ` [PATCH 3/3] block: improve aligning down bios in bio_iov_iter_bounce_write Christoph Hellwig
2026-09-09 2:47 ` misc block PI / bounce buffering fixes Martin K. Petersen (Oracle)
2026-09-11 16:41 ` Jens Axboe
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=90f94bcd-813d-48f9-a62c-3c703c4a71e6@linux.dev \
--to=john.garry@linux.dev \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mkp@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox