Linux RAID subsystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
To: agk@redhat.com, snitzer@kernel.org, mpatocka@redhat.com,
	song@kernel.org, yukuai3@huawei.com, hch@lst.de,
	nilay@linux.ibm.com, axboe@kernel.dk
Cc: dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	ojaswin@linux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com,
	John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 5/5] block: use chunk_sectors when evaluating stacked atomic write limits
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:37:37 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250618083737.4084373-6-john.g.garry@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250618083737.4084373-1-john.g.garry@oracle.com>

The atomic write unit max value is limited by any stacked device stripe
size.

It is required that the atomic write unit is a power-of-2 factor of the
stripe size.

Currently we use io_min limit to hold the stripe size, and check for a
io_min <= SECTOR_SIZE when deciding if we have a striped stacked device.

Nilay reports that this causes a problem when the physical block size is
greater than SECTOR_SIZE [0].

Furthermore, io_min may be mutated when stacking devices, and this makes
it a poor candidate to hold the stripe size. Such an example (of when
io_min may change) would be when the io_min is less than the physical
block size.

Use chunk_sectors to hold the stripe size, which is more appropriate.

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/888f3b1d-7817-4007-b3b3-1a2ea04df771@linux.ibm.com/T/#mecca17129f72811137d3c2f1e477634e77f06781

Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
---
 block/blk-settings.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-settings.c b/block/blk-settings.c
index 7ca21fb32598..20d3563f5d3f 100644
--- a/block/blk-settings.c
+++ b/block/blk-settings.c
@@ -596,41 +596,47 @@ static bool blk_stack_atomic_writes_boundary_head(struct queue_limits *t,
 	return true;
 }
 
+static inline unsigned int max_pow_of_two_factor(const unsigned int nr)
+{
+	return 1 << (ffs(nr) - 1);
+}
 
-/* Check stacking of first bottom device */
-static bool blk_stack_atomic_writes_head(struct queue_limits *t,
-				struct queue_limits *b)
+static void blk_stack_atomic_writes_chunk_sectors(struct queue_limits *t)
 {
-	if (b->atomic_write_hw_boundary &&
-	    !blk_stack_atomic_writes_boundary_head(t, b))
-		return false;
+	unsigned int chunk_bytes = t->chunk_sectors << SECTOR_SHIFT;
 
-	if (t->io_min <= SECTOR_SIZE) {
-		/* No chunk sectors, so use bottom device values directly */
-		t->atomic_write_hw_unit_max = b->atomic_write_hw_unit_max;
-		t->atomic_write_hw_unit_min = b->atomic_write_hw_unit_min;
-		t->atomic_write_hw_max = b->atomic_write_hw_max;
-		return true;
-	}
+	if (!t->chunk_sectors)
+		return;
 
 	/*
 	 * Find values for limits which work for chunk size.
 	 * b->atomic_write_hw_unit_{min, max} may not be aligned with chunk
-	 * size (t->io_min), as chunk size is not restricted to a power-of-2.
+	 * size, as the chunk size is not restricted to a power-of-2.
 	 * So we need to find highest power-of-2 which works for the chunk
 	 * size.
-	 * As an example scenario, we could have b->unit_max = 16K and
-	 * t->io_min = 24K. For this case, reduce t->unit_max to a value
-	 * aligned with both limits, i.e. 8K in this example.
+	 * As an example scenario, we could have t->unit_max = 16K and
+	 * t->chunk_sectors = 24KB. For this case, reduce t->unit_max to a
+	 * value aligned with both limits, i.e. 8K in this example.
 	 */
-	t->atomic_write_hw_unit_max = b->atomic_write_hw_unit_max;
-	while (t->io_min % t->atomic_write_hw_unit_max)
-		t->atomic_write_hw_unit_max /= 2;
+	t->atomic_write_hw_unit_max = min(t->atomic_write_hw_unit_max,
+					max_pow_of_two_factor(chunk_bytes));
 
-	t->atomic_write_hw_unit_min = min(b->atomic_write_hw_unit_min,
+	t->atomic_write_hw_unit_min = min(t->atomic_write_hw_unit_min,
 					  t->atomic_write_hw_unit_max);
-	t->atomic_write_hw_max = min(b->atomic_write_hw_max, t->io_min);
+	t->atomic_write_hw_max = min(t->atomic_write_hw_max, chunk_bytes);
+}
 
+/* Check stacking of first bottom device */
+static bool blk_stack_atomic_writes_head(struct queue_limits *t,
+				struct queue_limits *b)
+{
+	if (b->atomic_write_hw_boundary &&
+	    !blk_stack_atomic_writes_boundary_head(t, b))
+		return false;
+
+	t->atomic_write_hw_unit_max = b->atomic_write_hw_unit_max;
+	t->atomic_write_hw_unit_min = b->atomic_write_hw_unit_min;
+	t->atomic_write_hw_max = b->atomic_write_hw_max;
 	return true;
 }
 
@@ -658,6 +664,7 @@ static void blk_stack_atomic_writes_limits(struct queue_limits *t,
 
 	if (!blk_stack_atomic_writes_head(t, b))
 		goto unsupported;
+	blk_stack_atomic_writes_chunk_sectors(t);
 	return;
 
 unsupported:
-- 
2.31.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-06-18  8:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-06-18  8:37 [PATCH v2 0/5] block/md/dm: set chunk_sectors from stacked dev stripe size John Garry
2025-06-18  8:37 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] block: sanitize chunk_sectors for atomic write limits John Garry
2025-06-20 14:30   ` Nilay Shroff
2025-06-18  8:37 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] md/raid0: set chunk_sectors limit John Garry
2025-06-20 14:31   ` Nilay Shroff
2025-07-02  9:33   ` Yu Kuai
2025-06-18  8:37 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] md/raid10: " John Garry
2025-06-20 14:32   ` Nilay Shroff
2025-07-02  9:33   ` Yu Kuai
2025-06-18  8:37 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] dm-stripe: limit chunk_sectors to the stripe size John Garry
2025-06-20 14:33   ` Nilay Shroff
2025-06-23  9:49   ` Mikulas Patocka
2025-06-18  8:37 ` John Garry [this message]
2025-06-20  2:40   ` [PATCH v2 5/5] block: use chunk_sectors when evaluating stacked atomic write limits Martin K. Petersen
2025-06-20 11:35     ` John Garry
2025-06-20 14:33   ` Nilay Shroff
2025-06-20 14:29 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] block/md/dm: set chunk_sectors from stacked dev stripe size Nilay Shroff
2025-06-26  9:36 ` John Garry
2025-07-02  8:28   ` 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=20250618083737.4084373-6-john.g.garry@oracle.com \
    --to=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
    --cc=agk@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=dm-devel@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
    --cc=nilay@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=ojaswin@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=snitzer@kernel.org \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=yukuai3@huawei.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