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 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 smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CFA1C47DDB for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 08:44:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=+jpT77/Y7heo+XD38l9ZdbKR2TgCkqm1NIS2ypX7yMI=; b=RPEGnIW7cNZ823s8R6yEO8fvua oroPvQYgM+KcVdcBsyfBNvx7ap6tyy2hEx8T+q+GRFQmwolAcdvvEuCZ464ilijEX40iiZF4NcRHV 5Z/bWgiDyAbRimc8wRA69JzKAwj8+jUmQcLc9JEwNw76rYWJwN0TeJXB5s9U56tbBN9obryBkTR57 vKfV127Ml2FbP7nrgqgzV7smQmwST5ZOj3EK1zd83C+DeUbJaWShesNNoYMM78p9z81vB4pGKJilF xFU+t7qR8jFRIPWRNFmRPXh+sSX0rIctyowmHpGRwvN44qBds0gk6XqeOd9/fjaTY543fAQw3NbeG AjyWc8NQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rSCOu-00FcGA-0a; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 08:44:56 +0000 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rSCOr-00FcFG-2h for linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 08:44:55 +0000 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 9D8F268BEB; Tue, 23 Jan 2024 09:44:49 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 09:44:49 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Damien Le Moal Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Jens Axboe , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Jason Wang , Xuan Zhuo , Paolo Bonzini , Stefan Hajnoczi , "Martin K. Petersen" , Keith Busch , Sagi Grimberg , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, virtualization@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] block: add an API to atomically update queue limits Message-ID: <20240123084449.GB29041@lst.de> References: <20240122173645.1686078-1-hch@lst.de> <20240122173645.1686078-4-hch@lst.de> <01765807-d010-422b-97a6-3171265f36be@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01765807-d010-422b-97a6-3171265f36be@kernel.org> 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-20240123_004454_016665_C162ED15 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 25.09 ) X-BeenThere: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "Linux-nvme" Errors-To: linux-nvme-bounces+linux-nvme=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 01:50:32PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: > > + return -EINVAL; > > + return 0; > > + } > > + > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED))) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + if (lim->zone_write_granularity < lim->logical_block_size) > > + lim->zone_write_granularity = lim->logical_block_size; > > This check and change needs to be against the physical block size. Otherwise, > SMR drives will choke on it. It probably should, but this mirrors what is done in blk_queue_zone_write_granularity. And I want to match that behavior at least for now, we can then improve and document it once this is the only interface to validate the limits. > > + > > + if (lim->max_zone_append_sectors) { > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!lim->chunk_sectors)) > > + return -EINVAL; > > chunk_sectors is the zone size. So we should probably check that it is set after > the IS_ENABLED() check earlier in the function, no ? Possibly. In fact I'm wondering where the check comes from, as we don't seem to have it in the existing helpers. > > + if (!lim->logical_block_size) > > + lim->logical_block_size = SECTOR_SIZE; > > + > > + if (!lim->physical_block_size) > > + lim->physical_block_size = SECTOR_SIZE; > > + if (lim->physical_block_size < lim->logical_block_size) > > + lim->physical_block_size = lim->physical_block_size; > > + > > + if (!lim->io_min) > > + lim->io_min = SECTOR_SIZE; > > This should be lim->logical_block_size, no ? This comes from the default in blk_set_default_limits. > > > + if (lim->io_min < lim->physical_block_size) > > + lim->io_min = lim->physical_block_size; > > But then given that log <= phys, you could set io_min to physical_block_size if > it is not set. Which is what we do here, so the above is actually redundant and can be removed. > > + if (!lim->max_hw_sectors) > > + lim->max_hw_sectors = BLK_SAFE_MAX_SECTORS; > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(lim->max_hw_sectors < PAGE_SIZE / SECTOR_SIZE)) > > You can use PAGE_SECTORS here. Yes.