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
next prev 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