From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
dm-devel@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Block updates for 6.9-rc1
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:30:32 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZfDXiK2knK7Tx8Iw@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZfDVnVuDYwzDVnDx@redhat.com>
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 06:22:21PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > The real problem is that we combine the limits while we shouldn't.
> > Every since we've supported immutable biovecs and do the splitting
> > down in blk-mq there is no point to even inherit such limits in the
> > upper drivers.
>
> immutable biovecs, late splitting and blk-mq aren't a factor.
>
> dm-crypt has to contend with the crypto subsystem and HW crypto
> engines that have their own constraints.
Yes, they are. The limit for underlying device does not matter for
an upper devіce as it will split later. And that's not just my
opinion, you also clearly stated that in the commit adding the
limits (586b286b110e94e). We should have stopped inheriting all
these limits only relevant for splitting when we switched to
immutable bvecs. I don't know why we didn't, but a big part of
that might be that we never made clear which limits these are.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-12 22:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-10 20:30 [GIT PULL] Block updates for 6.9-rc1 Jens Axboe
2024-03-11 19:43 ` pr-tracker-bot
2024-03-11 23:50 ` Johannes Weiner
2024-03-11 23:53 ` Jens Axboe
2024-03-11 23:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2024-03-12 0:02 ` Jens Axboe
2024-03-12 0:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2024-03-12 0:28 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-03-12 1:03 ` Jens Axboe
2024-03-12 1:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-03-12 1:17 ` Jens Axboe
2024-03-12 1:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2024-03-12 1:23 ` Jens Axboe
2024-03-12 1:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2024-03-12 1:37 ` Jens Axboe
2024-03-12 16:39 ` Keith Busch
2024-03-12 11:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-03-12 15:25 ` Jens Axboe
2024-03-12 11:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-03-12 15:22 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-03-12 16:28 ` Keith Busch
2024-03-12 21:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-03-12 22:22 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-03-12 22:30 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2024-03-12 22:50 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-03-12 22:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-11 20:15 ` [PATCH for-6.10 0/2] dm: use late bio-splitting and queue_limits_set Mike Snitzer
2024-04-11 20:15 ` [PATCH for-6.10 1/2] dm-crypt: stop constraining max_segment_size to PAGE_SIZE Mike Snitzer
2024-04-12 6:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-15 14:08 ` Mikulas Patocka
2024-04-23 7:32 ` Ming Lei
2024-04-11 20:15 ` [PATCH for-6.10 2/2] dm: use queue_limits_set Mike Snitzer
2024-04-23 7:33 ` Ming Lei
2024-03-13 13:11 ` [GIT PULL] Block updates for 6.9-rc1 Ming Lei
2024-03-12 1:01 ` Jens Axboe
2024-03-12 0:25 ` 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=ZfDXiK2knK7Tx8Iw@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dm-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=snitzer@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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