[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <98c7b752-5d09-46b0-b137-5843523f3ddf@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 12:35:04 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: agk@...hat.com, snitzer@...nel.org, mpatocka@...hat.com, song@...nel.org,
yukuai3@...wei.com, hch@....de, nilay@...ux.ibm.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] block: use chunk_sectors when evaluating stacked
atomic write limits
On 20/06/2025 03:40, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>> 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.
> io_min is not allowed to be smaller than the physical_block_size. How
> did we end up violating that requirement?
>
> logical_block_size <= physical_block_size <= io_min <= io_opt
I should have been a bit less ambiguous in my words.
I meant that if we try to set the stacked device io_min (from the stripe
size) less than the bottom device phys block size, then this leads to
the stacked device io_min being set to the bottom device phys block
size. That's what I mean by mutating. And that's why it's a bad idea to
assume that the stripe size is in io_min.
Having said that, we should probably reject this even being allowed – we
should not have physical blocks straddling stripes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists