On 6/5/24 13:23, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 11:24:45AM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> The generic stacking of limits implemented in the block layer cannot >> correctly handle stacking of zone resource limits (max open zones and >> max active zones) > > ... for DM. All other limits stacking ends up in a single top device. I know. And I do not see your point here. > >> + /* >> + * If the target does not map all sequential zones, the limits >> + * will not be reliable. >> + */ >> + if (zc.target_nr_seq_zones < zc.total_nr_seq_zones) >> + zlim->reliable_limits = false; >> + >> + /* >> + * If the target maps less sequential zones than the limit values, then >> + * we do not have limits for this target. >> + */ >> + max_active_zones = disk->queue->limits.max_active_zones; >> + if (max_active_zones >= zc.target_nr_seq_zones) >> + max_active_zones = 0; >> + zlim->max_active_zones = >> + min_not_zero(max_active_zones, zlim->max_active_zones); >> + >> + max_open_zones = disk->queue->limits.max_open_zones; >> + if (max_open_zones >= zc.target_nr_seq_zones) >> + max_open_zones = 0; >> + zlim->max_open_zones = >> + min_not_zero(max_open_zones, zlim->max_open_zones); > > Given that your previous patch already caps max_open/active_zones to the > number of sequential zones, duplicating this here should not be needed. Indeed. Will remove this. > >> + /* We cannot have more open zones than active zones. */ >> + zlim->max_open_zones = >> + min(zlim->max_open_zones, zlim->max_active_zones); > > Same question about the capping as in patch 1, and same comment about > the duplication as above. Yes, we can remove this one too. > >> + if (zlim.max_open_zones >= zlim.mapped_nr_seq_zones) >> + lim->max_open_zones = 0; >> + else >> + lim->max_open_zones = zlim.max_open_zones; >> + >> + if (zlim.max_active_zones >= zlim.mapped_nr_seq_zones) >> + lim->max_active_zones = 0; >> + else >> + lim->max_active_zones = zlim.max_active_zones; > > And once more here. Yep. > > -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
