From: John Garry <john.garry@linux.dev>
To: Adrian Huang12 <ahuang12@lenovo.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: "kbusch@kernel.org" <kbusch@kernel.org>,
"sagi@grimberg.me" <sagi@grimberg.me>,
"linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
Jiwei JW10 Sun <sunjw10@lenovo.com>,
"iommu@lists.linux.dev" <iommu@lists.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] Revert "nvme-pci: clamp max_hw_sectors based on DMA optimized limitation"
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 09:42:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2007f03b-2c76-4c36-a0bd-0ce99d1a01a2@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <TPZP295MB0013C6E51C73799E49B8EFF4B3922@TPZP295MB0013.TWNP295.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
On 10/9/26 10:11, Adrian Huang12 wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2026 8:37 PM
>> To: John Garry <john.garry@linux.dev>
>> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>; kbusch@kernel.org; Adrian Huang12
>> <ahuang12@lenovo.com>; sagi@grimberg.me; linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org;
>> Jiwei JW10 Sun <sunjw10@lenovo.com>; iommu@lists.linux.dev
>> Subject: [External] Re: [PATCH] Revert "nvme-pci: clamp max_hw_sectors
>> based on DMA optimized limitation"
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 08, 2026 at 08:36:54AM +0100, John Garry wrote:
>>> On 10/6/26 13:02, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>> This turns down to cause up to 15% performance regressions on
>>>> standard large transfer workloads. Revert it and hope the IOVA
>>>> allocator can eventually be fixed to remove the need for the original
>> workaround.
>>>>
>>>> This reverts commit 3710e2b056cb92ad816e4d79fa54a6a5b6ad8cbd.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What was the block size and conditions for the original issue? The
>>> commit just mentions that mdts=10 and we get a 4096KB max HW sectors.
>>
>> Good question. The original submitter and reporter are on Cc.
>
> 1. The block size depends on the configuration of the fio parameter 'bs'. See below for details.
> 2. Conditions for the original issue: The issue is triggered if the IO size > 128KB.
>
> [Detail]
> 1. A NVME with mdts=10 (maximum data transfer size = 4096 KB)
> 1.1 fio with bs=128k or below => Passed
> 1.2 fio with bs > 128k => Failed
That block size limit is an important detail missing from
3710e2b056cb92ad816e4d79fa54a6a5b6ad8cbd commit message.
And now we seem to have a conflict, as Christoph wants block size > IOVA
rcache limit but you find it may cause this soft lockup.
> 2. Another NVME with mdts=5 (maximum data transfer size = 128KB)
> 2.1 The issue does not reproduce regardless of the 'bs' configuration
> 3. The condition '128 KB' is identified because the IOMMU scalable IOVA mechanism supports a maximum transfer size of 128 KB.
> 4. IOMMU pass-through mode does not trigger the issue with the 'mdts=10' nvme disk.
> 5. The issue only appears with high-core-count servers
> 5.1 Reproduced servers: 448-core server and 384-core server
> 5.2 Non-reproduced server: 128-core server
How long does it take for the lockup to trigger? Pretty quickly, I guess.
Does changing the number of CPUs affect throughput (before the lockup)?
Are you using just a single disk?
>
> BTW, with this reverted patch, I'm setting up the test environment to check whether the issue does not appear with a newer kernel that includes the updated IOMMU subsystem. I'll share the results by the end of next week.
>
thanks
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-12 8:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-06 12:02 [PATCH] Revert "nvme-pci: clamp max_hw_sectors based on DMA optimized limitation" Christoph Hellwig
2026-10-08 7:36 ` John Garry
2026-10-08 12:37 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-10-09 9:11 ` [External] " Adrian Huang12
2026-10-09 15:37 ` Keith Busch
2026-10-12 8:42 ` John Garry [this message]
2026-10-12 12:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-10-12 14:39 ` John Garry
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=2007f03b-2c76-4c36-a0bd-0ce99d1a01a2@linux.dev \
--to=john.garry@linux.dev \
--cc=ahuang12@lenovo.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
--cc=sunjw10@lenovo.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