On 3/10/20 3:40 PM, Song Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 4:16 AM Bob Liu <bob.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/28/20 10:51 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>>> Field bdi->io_pages added in commit 9491ae4aade6 ("mm: don't cap request
>>> size based on read-ahead setting") removes unneeded split of read requests.
>>>
>>> Stacked drivers do not call blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(). Instead they setup
>>> limits of their devices by blk_set_stacking_limits() + disk_stack_limits().
>>> Field bio->io_pages stays zero until user set max_sectors_kb via sysfs.
>>>
>>> This patch updates io_pages after merging limits in disk_stack_limits().
>>>
>>> Commit c6d6e9b0f6b4 ("dm: do not allow readahead to limit IO size") fixed
>>> the same problem for device-mapper devices, this one fixes MD RAIDs.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> block/blk-settings.c | 2 ++
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/block/blk-settings.c b/block/blk-settings.c
>>> index c8eda2e7b91e..66c45fd79545 100644
>>> --- a/block/blk-settings.c
>>> +++ b/block/blk-settings.c
>>> @@ -664,6 +664,8 @@ void disk_stack_limits(struct gendisk *disk, struct block_device *bdev,
>>> printk(KERN_NOTICE "%s: Warning: Device %s is misaligned\n",
>>> top, bottom);
>>> }
>>> +
>>> + t->backing_dev_info->io_pages = t->limits.max_sectors >> (PAGE_SHIFT-9);
>>> }
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(disk_stack_limits);
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nitpick.. (PAGE_SHIFT - 9)
>> Reviewed-by: Bob Liu <bob.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks for the fix. I fixed it based on the comments and applied it to md-next.
>
> Jens, I picked the patch to md-next because md is the only user of
> disk_stack_limits().
>
> Please let me know if you prefer routing it via the block tree.
That's fine, thanks.
--
Jens Axboe
