From: janpieter.sollie@edpnet.be
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>,
dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: allow device to have both virt_boundary_mask and max segment size
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 14:48:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3bd355e523a04b4a355fb84d5bc59224@edpnet.be> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZhOekuZdwlwNSiZV@fedora>
On 2024-04-08 09:36, Ming Lei wrote:
>
> It isn't now we put the limit, and this way has been done for stacking
> device
> since beginning, it is actually added by commit d690cb8ae14b in
> v6.9-rc1.
>
> If max segment size isn't aligned with virt_boundary_mask,
> bio_split_rw()
> will split the bio with max segment size, this way still works, just
> not
> efficiently. And in reality, the two are often aligned.
I take it as a compliment, building exotic configurations is something
I'd love to be good at.
But, as far as I understand, this warning is caused by my raid config,
right?
How is it possible that a raid6 array has a queue/max_segment_size of
(2^16 - 1) in sysfs while 2 others on the same system have a
queue/max_segment_size of (2^32 - 1)?
they are all rotational devices on the same SAS controller, just this
malfunctioning one uses SATA drives while the other 2 are SAS.
Understanding this would help me to avoid this unwanted behavior.
Kind regards,
Janpieter Sollie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-08 13:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-07 13:19 [PATCH] block: allow device to have both virt_boundary_mask and max segment size Ming Lei
2024-04-07 14:57 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-04-07 21:50 ` [PATCH] " Jens Axboe
2024-04-08 5:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-08 7:36 ` Ming Lei
2024-04-08 8:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-08 9:48 ` Ming Lei
2024-04-09 13:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-09 15:56 ` Ming Lei
2024-04-08 12:48 ` janpieter.sollie [this message]
2024-04-24 10:26 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2024-04-24 12:41 ` Ming Lei
2024-04-24 13:09 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3bd355e523a04b4a355fb84d5bc59224@edpnet.be \
--to=janpieter.sollie@edpnet.be \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dm-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=snitzer@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.