[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a547c675-6012-0596-4175-70c0905de292@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 09:24:26 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, hch@....de, sagi@...mberg.me,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, djwong@...nel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, dchinner@...hat.com,
jejb@...ux.ibm.com, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, paul@...l-moore.com,
jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 06/16] block: Limit atomic writes according to bio and
queue limits
On 03/05/2023 19:53, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 06:38:11PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>> + unsigned int size = (atomic_write_max_segments - 1) *
>> + (PAGE_SIZE / SECTOR_SIZE);
> Maybe use PAGE_SECTORS instead of recalculating it.
ok, that simplifies it a bit, but I still do have a doubt that the calc
I use for guaranteed amount of data which can fit in a bio without ever
requiring splitting to queue limits is correct...
Thanks,
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists