From: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
To: Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@gmail.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org,
david@fromorbit.com, leon@kernel.org, hch@lst.de,
sagi@grimberg.me, axboe@kernel.dk, joro@8bytes.org,
brauner@kernel.org, hare@suse.de, willy@infradead.org,
john.g.garry@oracle.com, p.raghav@samsung.com,
gost.dev@samsung.com, da.gomez@samsung.com
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] breaking the 512 KiB IO boundary on x86_64
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 10:38:29 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z92WBePJ620r5-13@kbusch-mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87jz8jrv0q.fsf@gmail.com>
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 07:43:09AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> i.e. w/o large folios in block devices one could do direct-io &
> buffered-io in parallel even just next to each other (assuming 4k pagesize).
>
> |4k-direct-io | 4k-buffered-io |
>
>
> However with large folios now supported in buffered-io path for block
> devices, the application cannot submit such direct-io + buffered-io
> pattern in parallel. Since direct-io can end up invalidating the folio
> spanning over it's 4k range, on which buffered-io is in progress.
Why would buffered io span more than the 4k range here? You're talking
to the raw block device in both cases, so they have the exact same
logical block size alignment. Why is buffered io allocating beyond
the logical size granularity?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-21 16:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-20 11:41 Luis Chamberlain
2025-03-20 12:11 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-03-20 13:29 ` Daniel Gomez
2025-03-20 14:31 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-03-20 13:47 ` Daniel Gomez
2025-03-20 14:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-21 9:14 ` Daniel Gomez
2025-03-20 14:18 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-20 15:37 ` Bart Van Assche
2025-03-20 15:58 ` Keith Busch
2025-03-20 16:13 ` Kanchan Joshi
2025-03-20 16:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-20 21:50 ` Luis Chamberlain
2025-03-20 21:46 ` Luis Chamberlain
2025-03-20 21:40 ` Luis Chamberlain
2025-03-20 18:46 ` Ritesh Harjani
2025-03-20 21:30 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-03-21 2:13 ` Ritesh Harjani
2025-03-21 3:05 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-03-21 4:56 ` Theodore Ts'o
2025-03-21 5:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-21 18:39 ` Ritesh Harjani
2025-03-21 16:38 ` Keith Busch [this message]
2025-03-21 17:21 ` Ritesh Harjani
2025-03-21 18:55 ` Keith Busch
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=Z92WBePJ620r5-13@kbusch-mbp \
--to=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=da.gomez@samsung.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=gost.dev@samsung.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=leon@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=p.raghav@samsung.com \
--cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
--cc=willy@infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox