From: Nilay Shroff <nilay@linux.ibm.com>
To: Jack Wang <jinpu.wang@ionos.com>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
Yu Kuai <yukuai@fygo.io>,
linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, abd.masalkhi@gmail.com
Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>,
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>, Xiao Ni <xiao@kernel.org>,
Li Nan <magiclinan@didiglobal.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>,
dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jack Wang <jinpu.wang@cloud.ionos.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] md: pass a queue_limits through ->run()
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2026 16:24:44 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ec866125-6e45-4977-bb01-b13697fd3a8c@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260910081114.1605746-7-jinpu.wang@ionos.com>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid0.c b/drivers/md/raid0.c
> index 35e103f0c2c3..59141e4299a8 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid0.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid0.c
> @@ -379,7 +379,8 @@ static void raid0_free(struct mddev *mddev, void *priv)
> kfree(conf);
> }
>
> -static int raid0_set_limits(struct mddev *mddev)
> +static int raid0_set_limits(struct mddev *mddev,
> + struct queue_limits *caller_lim)
> {
> struct queue_limits lim;
> int err;
> @@ -398,10 +399,19 @@ static int raid0_set_limits(struct mddev *mddev)
> err = mddev_stack_rdev_limits(mddev, &lim, MDDEV_STACK_INTEGRITY);
> if (err)
> return err;
> + /*
> + * The caller owns an update and commits it itself; taking
> + * q->limits_lock here would take it a second time.
> + */
> + if (caller_lim) {
> + *caller_lim = lim;
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> return queue_limits_set(mddev->gendisk->queue, &lim);
> }
>
[...]
> -static int raid1_set_limits(struct mddev *mddev)
> +static int raid1_set_limits(struct mddev *mddev,
> + struct queue_limits *caller_lim)
> {
> struct queue_limits lim;
> int err;
> @@ -3185,10 +3186,19 @@ static int raid1_set_limits(struct mddev *mddev)
> err = mddev_stack_rdev_limits(mddev, &lim, MDDEV_STACK_INTEGRITY);
> if (err)
> return err;
> + /*
> + * The caller owns an update and commits it itself; taking
> + * q->limits_lock here would take it a second time.
> + */
> + if (caller_lim) {
> + *caller_lim = lim;
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> return queue_limits_set(mddev->gendisk->queue, &lim);
> }
>
[...]
>
> -static int raid10_set_queue_limits(struct mddev *mddev)
> +static int raid10_set_queue_limits(struct mddev *mddev,
> + struct queue_limits *caller_lim)
> {
> struct r10conf *conf = mddev->private;
> struct queue_limits lim;
> @@ -3948,10 +3949,19 @@ static int raid10_set_queue_limits(struct mddev *mddev)
> err = mddev_stack_rdev_limits(mddev, &lim, MDDEV_STACK_INTEGRITY);
> if (err)
> return err;
> + /*
> + * The caller owns an update and commits it itself; taking
> + * q->limits_lock here would take it a second time.
> + */
> + if (caller_lim) {
> + *caller_lim = lim;
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> return queue_limits_set(mddev->gendisk->queue, &lim);
> }
>
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> index 22759c631c4d..28bd81de86c1 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> @@ -7944,7 +7944,8 @@ static int raid5_create_ctx_pool(struct r5conf *conf)
> return conf->ctx_pool ? 0 : -ENOMEM;
> }
>
> -static int raid5_set_limits(struct mddev *mddev)
> +static int raid5_set_limits(struct mddev *mddev,
> + struct queue_limits *caller_lim)
> {
> struct r5conf *conf = mddev->private;
> struct queue_limits lim;
> @@ -7996,10 +7997,19 @@ static int raid5_set_limits(struct mddev *mddev)
> /* No restrictions on the number of segments in the request */
> lim.max_segments = USHRT_MAX;
>
> + /*
> + * The caller owns an update and commits it itself; taking
> + * q->limits_lock here would take it a second time.
> + */
> + if (caller_lim) {
> + *caller_lim = lim;
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> return queue_limits_set(mddev->gendisk->queue, &lim);
> }
>
[...]
I'd propose the same changes as I suggested in patch 1/8, for
raid5_set_limits(), raid10_set_queue_limits(), raid1_set_limits()
and raid0_set_limits().
In particular, I think these functions should always operate on
a caller-provided struct queue_limits and only prepare/update the
limits, without deciding whether to commit them. The caller should
own the limits update and commit it as appropriate for its locking
context.
Thanks,
--Nilay
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-11 10:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-10 8:11 [PATCH v2 0/8] md: don't wait for q->limits_lock while md holds back I/O Jack Wang
2026-09-10 8:11 ` [PATCH v2 1/8] md: pass a queue_limits down to ->hot_add_disk() Jack Wang
2026-09-11 10:46 ` Nilay Shroff
2026-09-10 8:11 ` [PATCH v2 2/8] md: don't wait for q->limits_lock in check_sb_changes() Jack Wang
2026-09-10 8:11 ` [PATCH v2 3/8] md: pass a queue_limits through the rdev sysfs stores Jack Wang
2026-09-10 8:11 ` [PATCH v2 4/8] md: defer the io_opt update out of the sync thread Jack Wang
2026-09-10 8:11 ` [PATCH v2 5/8] md: take q->limits_lock before locking and suspending the array Jack Wang
2026-09-10 8:11 ` [PATCH v2 6/8] md: pass a queue_limits through ->run() Jack Wang
2026-09-11 10:54 ` Nilay Shroff [this message]
2026-09-10 8:11 ` [PATCH v2 7/8] md: open new legs before locking the array Jack Wang
2026-09-10 8:11 ` [PATCH v2 8/8] md: link a new leg's holder " Jack Wang
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=ec866125-6e45-4977-bb01-b13697fd3a8c@linux.ibm.com \
--to=nilay@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=abd.masalkhi@gmail.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dlemoal@kernel.org \
--cc=dm-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jinpu.wang@cloud.ionos.com \
--cc=jinpu.wang@ionos.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=magiclinan@didiglobal.com \
--cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
--cc=snitzer@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=tom.leiming@gmail.com \
--cc=xiao@kernel.org \
--cc=yukuai@fygo.io \
/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