[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231109151343.GB32432@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2023 16:13:43 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, kbusch@...nel.org, hch@....de, sagi@...mberg.me,
jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com, djwong@...nel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org,
chandan.babu@...cle.com, dchinner@...hat.com,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu, jbongio@...gle.com,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/21] block: Limit atomic writes according to bio and
queue limits
On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 10:27:07AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> We rely the block layer always being able to send a bio of size
> atomic_write_unit_max without being required to split it due to request
> queue or other bio limits.
>
> A bio may contain min(BIO_MAX_VECS, limits->max_segments) vectors,
> and each vector is at worst case the device logical block size from
> direct IO alignment requirement.
A bio can have more than BIO_MAX_VECS if you use bio_init.
> +static unsigned int blk_queue_max_guaranteed_bio_size_sectors(
> + struct request_queue *q)
> +{
> + struct queue_limits *limits = &q->limits;
> + unsigned int max_segments = min_t(unsigned int, BIO_MAX_VECS,
> + limits->max_segments);
> + /* Limit according to dev sector size as we only support direct-io */
Who is "we", and how tells the caller to only ever use direct I/O?
And how would a type of userspace I/O even matter for low-level
block code. What if I wanted to use this for file system metadata?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists