On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 08:27:43PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 09:27:06AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 04:18:34PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I'm a bit lost on what to do about the sad state of NVMe atomic writes. > > > > > > As a short reminder the main issues are: > > > > > > 1) there is no flag on a command to request atomic (aka non-torn) > > > behavior, instead writes adhering to the atomicy requirements will > > > never be torn, and writes not adhering them can be torn any time. > > > This differs from SCSI where atomic writes have to be be explicitly > > > requested and fail when they can't be satisfied > > > 2) the original way to indicate the main atomicy limit is the AWUPF > > > field, which is in Identify Controller, but specified in logical > > > blocks which only exist at a namespace layer. This a) lead to > > > > If controller-wide AWUPF is a must property, the length has to be aligned > > with block size. > > What block size? The controller doesn't have one. Block sizes are It should be any NS format's block size. > properties of namespaces, not controllers or subsystems. If you have 10 > namespaces with 10 different block formats, what does AUWPF mean? If the > controller must report something, the only rational thing it could > declare is reduced to the greatest common denominator, which is out of > sync with the true value reported in the appropriately scoped NAUWPF > value. Yes, please see the words I quoted from NVMe spec, also `6.4 Atomic Operations` mentioned: `NAWUPF >= AWUPF`. Thanks, Ming
