From: Chaitanya Kulkarni <Chaitanya.Kulkarni@wdc.com>
To: "hch@infradead.org" <hch@infradead.org>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
"axboe@kernel.dk" <axboe@kernel.dk>,
"bob.liu@oracle.com" <bob.liu@oracle.com>,
"agk@redhat.com" <agk@redhat.com>,
"snitzer@redhat.com" <snitzer@redhat.com>,
"dm-devel@redhat.com" <dm-devel@redhat.com>,
"song@kernel.org" <song@kernel.org>,
"tytso@mit.edu" <tytso@mit.edu>,
"adilger.kernel@dilger.ca" <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
"ming.lei@redhat.com" <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
"osandov@fb.com" <osandov@fb.com>,
"jthumshirn@suse.de" <jthumshirn@suse.de>,
"minwoo.im.dev@gmail.com" <minwoo.im.dev@gmail.com>,
Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>,
"andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com"
<andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>,
"hare@suse.com" <hare@suse.com>, "tj@kernel.org" <tj@kernel.org>,
Ajay Joshi <Ajay.Joshi@wdc.com>,
"sagi@grimberg.me" <sagi@grimberg.me>,
"dsterba@suse.com" <dsterba@suse.com>,
"bvanassche@acm.org" <bvanassche@acm.org>,
"dhowells@redhat.com" <dhowells@redhat.com>,
"asml.silence@gmail.com" <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/6] block: Introduce REQ_ALLOCATE flag for REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:48:08 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BYAPR04MB4965C03A4E397333E5141B9086CF0@BYAPR04MB4965.namprd04.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20200326144556.GA4317@infradead.org
On 03/26/2020 07:46 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:34:42AM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>> I just worry about the proliferation of identical merging and
>>> splitting code throughout the block stack as we add additional
>>> single-range, no payload operations (Verify, etc.). I prefer to
>>> enforce the semantics in the LLD and not in the plumbing. But I
>>> won't object to a separate REQ_OP_ALLOCATE if you find the
>>> resulting code duplication acceptable.
> I find it acceptable for now. And I think we should find some way
> (e.g. by being table driven) to share code between differnet
> opcodes.
>
With reference to Martin's comment (verify etc) there is a significant
advantage when using payloadless bio to offload the functionality
to the directly attached device and over the fabrics when dealing
with larger disks.
How about we create a helper which is independent of the operations
can accept req_op and issues the payloadless bios. Something like
following totally untested :-
diff --git a/block/blk-lib.c b/block/blk-lib.c
index cf9e75a730b4..d3fccd3211cc 100644
--- a/block/blk-lib.c
+++ b/block/blk-lib.c
@@ -209,6 +209,33 @@ int blkdev_issue_write_same(struct block_device
*bdev, sector_t sector,
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(blkdev_issue_write_same);
+static void __blkdev_issue_payloadless(struct block_device *bdev,
unsigned op,
+ sector_t sector, sector_t nr_sects, gfp_t gfp_mask,
+ struct bio **biop, unsigned bio_opf, unsigned int
max_sectors)
+{
+ struct bio *bio = *biop;
+
+ while (nr_sects) {
+ bio = blk_next_bio(bio, 0, gfp_mask);
+ bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = sector;
+ bio_set_dev(bio, bdev);
+ bio->bi_opf = op;
+ bio->bi_opf |= bio_opf;
+
+ if (nr_sects > max_sectors) {
+ bio->bi_iter.bi_size = max_sectors << 9;
+ nr_sects -= max_sectors;
+ sector += max_sectors;
+ } else {
+ bio->bi_iter.bi_size = nr_sects << 9;
+ nr_sects = 0;
+ }
+ cond_resched();
+ }
+
+ *biop = bio;
+}
+
static int __blkdev_issue_write_zeroes(struct block_device *bdev,
sector_t sector, sector_t nr_sects, gfp_t gfp_mask,
struct bio **biop, unsigned flags)
@@ -216,6 +243,7 @@ static int __blkdev_issue_write_zeroes(struct
block_device *bdev,
struct bio *bio = *biop;
unsigned int max_write_zeroes_sectors;
struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(bdev);
+ unsigned int unmap = (flags & BLKDEV_ZERO_NOUNMAP) ? REQ_NOUNMAP
: 0;
if (!q)
return -ENXIO;
@@ -229,24 +257,8 @@ static int __blkdev_issue_write_zeroes(struct
block_device *bdev,
if (max_write_zeroes_sectors == 0)
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
- while (nr_sects) {
- bio = blk_next_bio(bio, 0, gfp_mask);
- bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = sector;
- bio_set_dev(bio, bdev);
- bio->bi_opf = REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES;
- if (flags & BLKDEV_ZERO_NOUNMAP)
- bio->bi_opf |= REQ_NOUNMAP;
-
- if (nr_sects > max_write_zeroes_sectors) {
- bio->bi_iter.bi_size = max_write_zeroes_sectors
<< 9;
- nr_sects -= max_write_zeroes_sectors;
- sector += max_write_zeroes_sectors;
- } else {
- bio->bi_iter.bi_size = nr_sects << 9;
- nr_sects = 0;
- }
- cond_resched();
- }
+ __blkdev_issue_payloadless(bdev, REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES, sector,
nr_sects,
+ gfp_mask, biop, unmap, max_write_zeroes_sectors);
*biop = bio;
return 0;
I'll be happy to send out a well tested patch based on the above
suggestion or any feedback I get and re-spin this series or OP can
re-spin this series whatever works.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-26 16:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-13 7:39 [PATCH v7 0/6] block: Introduce REQ_ALLOCATE flag for REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES Kirill Tkhai
2020-02-13 7:39 ` [PATCH v7 1/6] block: Add @flags argument to bdev_write_zeroes_sectors() Kirill Tkhai
2020-02-13 7:39 ` [PATCH v7 2/6] block: Pass op_flags into blk_queue_get_max_sectors() Kirill Tkhai
2020-02-13 7:39 ` [PATCH v7 3/6] block: Introduce blk_queue_get_max_write_zeroes_sectors() Kirill Tkhai
2020-02-13 7:39 ` [PATCH v7 4/6] block: Add support for REQ_ALLOCATE flag Kirill Tkhai
2020-02-13 7:39 ` [PATCH v7 5/6] block: Add blk_queue_max_allocate_sectors() Kirill Tkhai
2020-02-13 7:39 ` [PATCH v7 6/6] loop: Add support for REQ_ALLOCATE Kirill Tkhai
2020-02-13 18:11 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-02-13 20:07 ` Kirill Tkhai
2020-02-13 7:55 ` [PATCH v7 0/6] block: Introduce REQ_ALLOCATE flag for REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES Kirill Tkhai
2020-03-06 9:11 ` Kirill Tkhai
2020-03-13 13:08 ` Kirill Tkhai
2020-03-19 10:28 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-19 10:42 ` Kirill Tkhai
2020-03-19 13:03 ` Martin K. Petersen
2020-03-25 16:26 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-03-25 16:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-25 17:23 ` Martin K. Petersen
2020-03-26 9:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-26 14:34 ` Martin K. Petersen
2020-03-26 14:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-26 16:48 ` Chaitanya Kulkarni [this message]
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=BYAPR04MB4965C03A4E397333E5141B9086CF0@BYAPR04MB4965.namprd04.prod.outlook.com \
--to=chaitanya.kulkarni@wdc.com \
--cc=Ajay.Joshi@wdc.com \
--cc=Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
--cc=asml.silence@gmail.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bob.liu@oracle.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=hare@suse.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jthumshirn@suse.de \
--cc=ktkhai@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=minwoo.im.dev@gmail.com \
--cc=osandov@fb.com \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).