linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible bio merging breakage in mp bio rework
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 11:52:59 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <eb586b8f-f8d4-f455-6203-4ceae2420274@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190406001653.GA4805@ming.t460p>

On 06/04/2019 02:16, Ming Lei wrote:
> Hi Nikolay,
> 
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 07:04:18PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> Hello Ming, 
>>
>> Following the mp biovec rework what is the maximum 
>> data that a bio could contain? Should it be PAGE_SIZE * bio_vec 
> 
> There isn't any maximum data limit on the bio submitted from fs,
> and block layer will make the final bio sent to driver correct
> by applying all kinds of queue limit, such as max segment size,
> max segment number, max sectors, ...

Naive question, why are we creating possibly huge bios just to split
them according the the LLDD's limits afterwards?

Can't we look at the limits in e.g. bio_add_page() and decide if we need
to split there?

This is just me thinking about it, I haven't though if there are any
resulting performance penalties from it, yet.

Byte,
	Johannes
-- 
Johannes Thumshirn                            SUSE Labs Filesystems
jthumshirn@suse.de                                +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-04-08  9:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-05 16:04 Possible bio merging breakage in mp bio rework Nikolay Borisov
2019-04-06  0:16 ` Ming Lei
2019-04-06  6:09   ` Nikolay Borisov
2019-04-06  8:00     ` Qu Wenruo
2019-04-06 12:30     ` Ming Lei
2019-04-08  9:52   ` Johannes Thumshirn [this message]
2019-04-08 10:19     ` Ming Lei
2019-04-08 10:22       ` Johannes Thumshirn

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=eb586b8f-f8d4-f455-6203-4ceae2420274@suse.de \
    --to=jthumshirn@suse.de \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=nborisov@suse.com \
    --cc=osandov@osandov.com \
    /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).