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 A93F4C001DE for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 14:33:10 +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:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=RdQAM6VxGMfoMTaPvBMcsHXXQDS0t6wgyEF3X9osK3w=; b=UX+BpvuCAN32AyMhF/vmnrsHUg 1keSSRWSMSMSWfuWMFbdkThCorHXrZJ8YlwQk2BgfpDr7WfkdJu8LJa9Q50KwASBrrcD4wWq/EiIV oVeT7EPdxG/6iQunvtCVBWWFeHlRK+Cglcw4lAcPqjxylakMXxe0ruVkstef2mKrhYwmn/MFzu7Wz SQGls667yeo/Mvf2uXGyBCWVger2i9iwxKabDmOIXL1YVOsB9DWzvIjZAQKpNCoHepSV0bDqhf14U L9Expbjvwj+3HdlSmply4ccNIVcOxQ+aeacOuqEVrP+QTBRO7TO+ifxPi2QOIkSoEQXt9y19WmcFh JyfrOItA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1qQTxM-00G8oj-09; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 14:33:08 +0000 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org ([2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1qQTxJ-00G8n3-13 for linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 14:33:06 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C31D96117E; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 14:33:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 98223C433C7; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 14:33:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1690813984; bh=zSETG/ZitpLOxcM6B1R5a9FyDOKM69LLigtLZ5RJ5sI=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=FuJgYKk92kQfapeQD3sGS/ciPMajjBa1opzfb5BWJW/WqdAhl0sTM1zjRZ/6Hh/Sz yOrGCZ09/XRym22Jj0mElDi9CW0Avdkq0XmmDvfyJ2TjZjh+uhr7nilrFq78iamaNV Ywbnc5qhGJPaibb12gyjMjLJdvWPgjOdcJxRFu5DOMLRLlcYHd05pM0R7EhIQ/L+SF mVFzx3fC9x888RZuGmYPkp4cUuk3G8Pm69DFNXHg2Q0rLb8UAzuzKCV3rHkKHPi1HE nKs3RcNovmcO1ygil4u3Mru2n+n4LPs0i9JRB2gTYz8iBsG+5Ger+bGZhIWLbM8K2O lvL/ZnpS92NPw== Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 23:33:02 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme: zns: limit max_zone_append by max_segments Content-Language: en-US To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Shin'ichiro Kawasaki , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, Keith Busch , Johannes Thumshirn References: <20230731114632.1429799-1-shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com> <3a827ef4-4143-a7d4-f3b1-6b50837f6fd9@kernel.org> <8da417c3-f505-ebfc-c92a-509fee68cfa3@kernel.org> From: Damien Le Moal Organization: Western Digital Research In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20230731_073305_408922_056E908B X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 15.68 ) 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 7/31/23 23:26, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 11:12:43PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> max zone append sectors limit indicates the maximum size of a zone append BIO >> that can be built without ever needing splitting. >> >> So if we fix the zns limit, zonefs does not really need a fix, eventhough the >> code would be a little weird as-is. > > You still need to fix splitting due to I/O layout and not just size. > > E.g. if your do a writev() with two non-page aligned buffers (you'll > probably need a arm64 or power box to trigger it), you need to split > the bio even if it trivially fits into the size limit. Similar for > things like max_segment_size. Good point. So fix needed. -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research