Re: [PATCH 01/21] block: Add atomic write operations to request_queue limits

[John Garry]

On 10/11/2023 06:23, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 05:01:10PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> > Generally they come from the same device property. Then since
> > atomic_write_unit_max_bytes must be a power-of-2 (and
> > atomic_write_max_bytes may not be), they may be different.
> How much do we care about supporting the additional slack over the
> power of two version?

I'm not sure yet. It depends on any merging support and splitting 
safeguards introduced.

> > In addition,
> > atomic_write_unit_max_bytes is required to be limited by whatever is
> > guaranteed to be able to fit in a bio.
> The limit what fits into a bio is UINT_MAX, not sure that matters 😄

I am talking about what we guarantee that we can always fit in a bio 
according to request queue limits and bio vector count, e.g. if the 
request queue limits us to 8 segments only, then we can't guarantee to 
fit much in (without splitting) and need to limit atomic_write_unit_max 
accordingly.

> > atomic_write_max_bytes is really only relevant for merging writes. Maybe we
> > should not even expose via sysfs.
> Or we need to have a good separate discussion on even supporting any
> merges.  Willy chimed in that supporting merges was intentional,
> but I'd really like to see numbers justifying it.

So far I have tested on an environment where the datarates are not high 
and any merging benefit was minimal to non-existent. But that is not to 
say it could help elsewhere.

Thanks,
John