public inbox for linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Shin'ichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com>
Cc: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>,
	Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>,
	Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme: zns: limit max_zone_append by max_segments
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 06:46:01 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZMe7Gck9MSo8Fn+a@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230731114632.1429799-1-shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com>

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 08:46:32PM +0900, Shin'ichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> To avoid the unexpected BIO split, reflect the max_segments limit to the
> max_zone_append limit. In the worst case, the safe max_zone_append size
> is max_segments multiplied by PAGE_SIZE. Compare it with the
> max_zone_append size obtained from ZNS devices, and set the smaller
> value as the max_zone_append limit.

This is true only for NVMe and a hand full of drivers that
set the virt_boundary.  For others the maximum size is completely
unrelated to the maximum number of segments.

Can you reword the commit log a bit to make that more clear?

> diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/zns.c b/drivers/nvme/host/zns.c
> index ec8557810c21..9ee77626c235 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvme/host/zns.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/zns.c
> @@ -10,9 +10,11 @@
>  int nvme_revalidate_zones(struct nvme_ns *ns)
>  {
>  	struct request_queue *q = ns->queue;
> +	unsigned int max_sectors = queue_max_segments(q) << PAGE_SECTORS_SHIFT;
>  
>  	blk_queue_chunk_sectors(q, ns->zsze);
> -	blk_queue_max_zone_append_sectors(q, ns->ctrl->max_zone_append);
> +	max_sectors = min(max_sectors, ns->ctrl->max_zone_append);
> +	blk_queue_max_zone_append_sectors(q, max_sectors);

And while this looks correct, it also feels pretty ugly.  Shouldn't a

	blk_queue_max_zone_append_sectors(q,
		queue_max_sectors(q), ns->ctrl->max_zone_append);

do the same thing in a somewhat more obvious way given that max_segments
is already taken into account for the queue_max_sectors calculation?


  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-07-31 13:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-07-31 11:46 [PATCH] nvme: zns: limit max_zone_append by max_segments Shin'ichiro Kawasaki
2023-07-31 12:03 ` Damien Le Moal
2023-07-31 13:51   ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-07-31 14:01     ` Damien Le Moal
2023-07-31 14:06       ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-07-31 14:12         ` Damien Le Moal
2023-07-31 14:26           ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-07-31 14:33             ` Damien Le Moal
2023-07-31 13:46 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2023-07-31 14:02   ` Damien Le Moal
2023-07-31 14:05     ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-07-31 14:07       ` Damien Le Moal
2023-07-31 14:08         ` Christoph Hellwig

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=ZMe7Gck9MSo8Fn+a@infradead.org \
    --to=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=dlemoal@kernel.org \
    --cc=johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com \
    --cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.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