Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] md/raid1: advertise atomic write limits and handle runtime constraints
John Garry <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.raid,gmane.linux.kernel |
|---|---|
| Organization | Oracle Corporation |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 06/07/2026 12:35, Abd-Alrhman Masalkhi wrote: >> well it seems to be that everything in the driver is split over >> BARRIER_UNIT_SECTOR_SIZE, so is in effect a chunk size. >> >> Note that atomic_write_hw_unit_max is going to be small always compared >> to BARRIER_UNIT_SECTOR_SIZE. >> >> However, can you check the blk stacking code to make sure that this does >> as you want? As I remember, for stacking we take the atomic write limits >> of the first bottom device and then stack the other bottom devices and I >> don't think that setting atomic_write_hw_unit_max in this way has an >> impact - see blk_stack_atomic_writes_limits() >> > I checked blk_stack_atomic_writes_limits(), and you are right: setting > atomic_write_hw_unit_max here alone does not have the intended effect on > the final stacked device. > > Also, since atomic_write_hw_unit_max is expected to always be smaller > than BARRIER_UNIT_SECTOR_SIZE, Yes, always expected to be much smaller. > it seems that there is no need to set an > additional atomic write limit in raid1, or even to set > atomic_write_hw_unit_max at all. Is that what you mean? Even though we expect it to be much smaller, it's good practice to ensure this. One method to do so - which I already mentioned - was to set the chunk size to BARRIER_UNIT_SECTOR_SIZE. You were not keen on that. Another method is to set max hw sectors for the RAID1 device to BARRIER_UNIT_SECTOR_SIZE. Thanks, John