On Thu, Sep 10 2020 at 5:28am -0400, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 12:20:07PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 02 2020 at 11:11am -0400, > > Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 06:07:38PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 26 2020 at 11:03am -0400, > > > > Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Drivers shouldn't really mess with the readahead size, as that is a VM > > > > > concept. Instead set it based on the optimal I/O size by lifting the > > > > > algorithm from the md driver when registering the disk. Also set > > > > > bdi->io_pages there as well by applying the same scheme based on > > > > > max_sectors. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > block/blk-settings.c | 5 ++--- > > > > > block/blk-sysfs.c | 1 - > > > > > block/genhd.c | 13 +++++++++++-- > > > > > drivers/block/aoe/aoeblk.c | 2 -- > > > > > drivers/block/drbd/drbd_nl.c | 12 +----------- > > > > > drivers/md/bcache/super.c | 4 ---- > > > > > drivers/md/dm-table.c | 3 --- > > > > > drivers/md/raid0.c | 16 ---------------- > > > > > drivers/md/raid10.c | 24 +----------------------- > > > > > drivers/md/raid5.c | 13 +------------ > > > > > 10 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > In general these changes need a solid audit relative to stacking > > > > drivers. That is, the limits stacking methods (blk_stack_limits) > > > > vs lower level allocation methods (__device_add_disk). > > > > > > > > You optimized for lowlevel __device_add_disk establishing the bdi's > > > > ra_pages and io_pages. That is at the beginning of disk allocation, > > > > well before any build up of stacking driver's queue_io_opt() -- which > > > > was previously done in disk_stack_limits or driver specific methods > > > > (e.g. dm_table_set_restrictions) that are called _after_ all the limits > > > > stacking occurs. > > > > > > > > By inverting the setting of the bdi's ra_pages and io_pages to be done > > > > so early in __device_add_disk it'll break properly setting these values > > > > for at least DM afaict. > > > > > > ra_pages never got inherited by stacking drivers, check it by modifying > > > it on an underlying device and then creating a trivial dm or md one. > > > > Sure, not saying that it did. But if the goal is to set ra_pages based > > on io_opt then to do that correctly on stacking drivers it must be done > > in terms of limits stacking right? Or at least done at a location that > > is after the limits stacking has occurred? So should DM just open-code > > setting ra_pages like it did for io_pages? > > > > Because setting ra_pages in __device_add_disk() is way too early for DM > > -- given it uses device_add_disk_no_queue_reg via add_disk_no_queue_reg > > at DM device creation (before stacking all underlying devices' limits). > > I'll move it to blk_register_queue, which should work just fine. That'll work for initial DM table load as part of DM device creation (dm_setup_md_queue). But it won't account for DM table reloads that might change underlying devices on a live DM device (done using __bind). Both dm_setup_md_queue() and __bind() call dm_table_set_restrictions() to set/update queue_limits. It feels like __bind() will need to call a new block helper to set/update parts of queue_limits (e.g. ra_pages and io_pages). Any chance you're open to factoring out that block function as an exported symbol for use by blk_register_queue() and code like DM's __bind()? Thanks, Mike -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
