Linux RAID subsystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Hiroshi Nishida" <nishidafmly@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, yukuai@fygo.io
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] md/raid5: scale the stripe_cache_size limit with system memory
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 13:34:53 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260710133453.E022F1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260710132346.7295-4-nishidafmly@gmail.com>

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] Integer overflow in `raid5_max_cache_size` on 32-bit platforms with 4GB+ RAM.
--

--- Patch [3]: [PATCH 3/6] md/raid5: scale the stripe_cache_size limit with system memory ---
commit 9086a4a6d9e318381885104d84e3f0ec9bbeec13
Author: Hiroshi Nishida <nishidafmly@gmail.com>

md/raid5: scale the stripe_cache_size limit with system memory

This commit derives the upper bound for the per-array stripe_cache_size from
system memory rather than a fixed limit. It scales the maximum cache size to
1/8 of RAM, allowing large-memory hosts to grow the cache while preventing
small systems from exceeding total RAM.

> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> index 7f72981121fd5..e41d3fc92dd05 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c

[ ... ]

> @@ -6922,13 +6928,42 @@ raid5_show_stripe_cache_size(struct mddev *mddev, char *page)
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * Upper bound that the per-array stripe_cache_size may be raised to.  The
> + * stripe cache costs roughly max_nr_stripes * (sizeof(stripe_head) +
> + * pool_size * (sizeof(bio) + PAGE_SIZE)).  The limit was historically a fixed
> + * 32768 stripes, which both under-serves large-memory hosts backing wide
> + * arrays and, on a small box, still permits a cache larger than RAM.  Derive
> + * it from memory instead -- at most 1/8 of RAM -- but never below the
> + * historical 32768, so the limit only ever grows relative to today.  A
> + * non-zero stripe_cache_size_max module parameter overrides the heuristic.
> + */
> +#define RAID5_CACHE_SIZE_FLOOR		32768
> +#define RAID5_CACHE_SIZE_RAM_SHIFT	3	/* cap the cache at 1/8 of RAM */
> +
> +static unsigned long raid5_max_cache_size(struct r5conf *conf)
> +{
> +	unsigned long per_stripe, limit;
> +
> +	if (stripe_cache_size_max) {
> +		limit = stripe_cache_size_max;
> +	} else {
> +		per_stripe = sizeof(struct stripe_head) +
> +			     conf->pool_size * (sizeof(struct bio) + PAGE_SIZE);
> +		limit = ((totalram_pages() << PAGE_SHIFT) >>
> +			 RAID5_CACHE_SIZE_RAM_SHIFT) / per_stripe;

[Severity: Medium]
Will this calculation overflow on 32-bit platforms with 4GB or more of RAM?

Since totalram_pages() returns an unsigned long, on a 32-bit system with high
memory (e.g., using PAE), totalram_pages() can be 1,048,576 or more.
Left-shifting this by PAGE_SHIFT (12) will overflow the 32-bit integer,
yielding a severely truncated value or 0.

This seems like it would cause the dynamic limit to inappropriately clamp to
the RAID5_CACHE_SIZE_FLOOR on such systems, breaking the intended memory-based
scaling.

> +		limit = max_t(unsigned long, limit, RAID5_CACHE_SIZE_FLOOR);
> +	}
> +	return min_t(unsigned long, limit, INT_MAX);
> +}
> +

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260710132346.7295-1-nishidafmly@gmail.com?part=3

  reply	other threads:[~2026-07-10 13:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-07-10 13:23 [PATCH 0/6] md/raid5: size stripe-cache and worker tuning from the hardware Hiroshi Nishida
2026-07-10 13:23 ` [PATCH 1/6] md/raid5: size the worker group array by nr_node_ids Hiroshi Nishida
2026-07-10 13:39   ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-10 13:23 ` [PATCH 2/6] md/raid5: size stripe-cache hash locks from the CPU count Hiroshi Nishida
2026-07-10 13:41   ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-10 13:23 ` [PATCH 3/6] md/raid5: scale the stripe_cache_size limit with system memory Hiroshi Nishida
2026-07-10 13:34   ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-07-10 13:23 ` [PATCH 4/6] md/raid5: make the stripe batch size a module parameter Hiroshi Nishida
2026-07-10 13:36   ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-10 13:23 ` [PATCH 5/6] md/raid5: scale the default stripe cache size with system memory Hiroshi Nishida
2026-07-10 13:37   ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-10 13:23 ` [PATCH 6/6] md/raid5: derive the default group_thread_cnt from the hardware Hiroshi Nishida
2026-07-10 13:42   ` sashiko-bot

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=20260710133453.E022F1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
    --to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nishidafmly@gmail.com \
    --cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=yukuai@fygo.io \
    /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