From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BE48C43331 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 07:52:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E25C2063A for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 07:52:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="sQXBHb8B" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6E25C2063A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-nvme-bounces+linux-nvme=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=sXFvbjQj7Py1Zq2rFgukHp9lshl88/akRfU82TlKfVs=; b=sQXBHb8BptKiMP mHnKFor4NvweD655CIeI/BIMzY6q+J0OSCkMEoxsSl86+YdUqkuDBWnUMVMbnEQLHIXFFIRywTkvP WDlIPaT3+5BJulc2tbRbGaLEEWWtvnteQ4iKokbY8SfY4mR73k7PgElBAgg+ShEpI05tak+QmEsGk YByDz/6CCEg8Ql+yuPFE6WflWtdVNaf+O/q3Ubxpfxzv8B+DKRgqMN1+KuUa7HnT7XOyJXGNQaGhY yL46OWPrBsoaCZbgJkkZbdQwOeae/x6vFvBUHTyoEXDaK//4UhJ2VjunuLVEtYL4KZaU4gxC4R0Fq GhGMQfLFySBBThVMzUfQ==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jJue2-0007Ni-Lw; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 07:52:10 +0000 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jJudz-0007Ml-SL for linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 07:52:09 +0000 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 343CA68C4E; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 09:52:01 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 09:52:00 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Sagi Grimberg Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] nvme: inherit stable pages constraint in the mpath stack device Message-ID: <20200402075200.GA15551@lst.de> References: <20200401060625.10293-1-sagi@grimberg.me> <20200401090542.GB31980@lst.de> <469eb075-2a6f-3386-f843-90525590fcba@grimberg.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <469eb075-2a6f-3386-f843-90525590fcba@grimberg.me> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200402_005208_065750_8C6FE714 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 12.57 ) X-BeenThere: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Keith Busch , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , Christoph Hellwig , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-nvme" Errors-To: linux-nvme-bounces+linux-nvme=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 12:11:09PM -0700, Sagi Grimberg wrote: >> I think this needs to go into blk_queue_stack_limits instead, otherwise >> we have the same problem with other stacking drivers. > > I thought about this, but the stack_limits has different variants > (blk_stack_limits, bdev_stack_limits) but only the first takes a > request_queue... > > I see that dm-table does roughly the same thing, drbd ignores it. > In general, dm is doing a whole bunch of stacking limits/capabilities > related stuff that are not involved in blk_stack_limits... > > I could theoretically add a flag to queue_limits to mirror this, is > that what you are suggesting? I guess we'll just go with your v4 patch for now and I'll see if I can refactor this mess later.. _______________________________________________ linux-nvme mailing list linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme