On 2/14/24 18:32, John Garry wrote:
> On 14/02/2024 12:27, Nilay Shroff wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Use following method to calculate limits:
>>
>>> atomic_write_max_bytes = flp2(NAWUPF ?: AWUPF)
>>
>
> You still need to fix that mail client to not add extra blank lines.
Yes, I am working on it. I hope it's solved now.
>
>>> atomic_write_unit_min = logical_block_size
>>
>>> atomic_write_unit_max = flp2(NAWUPF ?: AWUPF)
>>
>>> atomic_write_boundary = NABSPF
>>
>>
>>
>> In case the device doesn't support namespace atomic boundary size (i.e. NABSPF
>>
>> is zero) then while merging atomic block-IO we should allow merge.
>>
>>
>> For example, while front/back merging the atomic block IO, we check whether
>>
>> boundary is defined or not. In case if boundary is not-defined (i.e. it's zero)
>>
>> then we simply reject merging ateempt (as implemented in
>>
>> rq_straddles_atomic_write_boundary()).
>
> Are you sure about that? In rq_straddles_atomic_write_boundary(), if boundary == 0, then we return false, i.e. there is no boundary, so we can never be crossing it.
>
> static bool rq_straddles_atomic_write_boundary(struct request *rq,
> unsigned int front,
> unsigned int back)
> {
> unsigned int boundary = queue_atomic_write_boundary_bytes(rq->q);
> unsigned int mask, imask;
> loff_t start, end;
>
> if (!boundary)
> return false;
>
> ...
> }
>
> And then will not reject a merge for that reason, like:
>
> int ll_back_merge_fn(struct request *req, struct bio *bio, unsigned int nr_segs)
> {
> ...
>
> if (req->cmd_flags & REQ_ATOMIC) {
> if (rq_straddles_atomic_write_boundary(req,
> 0, bio->bi_iter.bi_size)) {
> return 0;
> }
> }
>
> return ll_new_hw_segment(req, bio, nr_segs);
> }
>
>
Aargh, you are right. I see that if rq_straddles_atomic_write_boundary() returns true then we avoid merge otherwise the merge is attempted. My bad...
Thanks,
--Nilay
