All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: axboe@fb.com, Matias Bjorling <mb@lightnvm.io>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] block: remove the segment size check in bio_will_gap
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 16:34:56 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190515083455.GC23052@ming.t460p> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190513063754.1520-4-hch@lst.de>

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 08:37:47AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> We fundamentally do not have a maximum segement size for devices with a
> virt boundary.  So don't bother checking it, especially given that the
> existing checks didn't properly work to start with as we never update
> bi_seg_back_size after a successful merge, and for front merges would

.bi_seg_back_size is only needed to update in case of single segment
request.

However, ll_new_hw_segment() does not merge segment, so the existing
check works fine.

> have had to check bi_seg_front_size anyway.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> ---
>  block/blk-merge.c | 19 +------------------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/blk-merge.c b/block/blk-merge.c
> index 80a5a0facb87..eee2c02c50ce 100644
> --- a/block/blk-merge.c
> +++ b/block/blk-merge.c
> @@ -12,23 +12,6 @@
>  
>  #include "blk.h"
>  
> -/*
> - * Check if the two bvecs from two bios can be merged to one segment.  If yes,
> - * no need to check gap between the two bios since the 1st bio and the 1st bvec
> - * in the 2nd bio can be handled in one segment.
> - */
> -static inline bool bios_segs_mergeable(struct request_queue *q,
> -		struct bio *prev, struct bio_vec *prev_last_bv,
> -		struct bio_vec *next_first_bv)
> -{
> -	if (!biovec_phys_mergeable(q, prev_last_bv, next_first_bv))
> -		return false;
> -	if (prev->bi_seg_back_size + next_first_bv->bv_len >
> -			queue_max_segment_size(q))
> -		return false;
> -	return true;
> -}
> -
>  static inline bool bio_will_gap(struct request_queue *q,
>  		struct request *prev_rq, struct bio *prev, struct bio *next)
>  {
> @@ -60,7 +43,7 @@ static inline bool bio_will_gap(struct request_queue *q,
>  	 */
>  	bio_get_last_bvec(prev, &pb);
>  	bio_get_first_bvec(next, &nb);
> -	if (bios_segs_mergeable(q, prev, &pb, &nb))
> +	if (biovec_phys_mergeable(q, &pb, &nb))
>  		return false;
>  	return __bvec_gap_to_prev(q, &pb, nb.bv_offset);
>  }
> -- 
> 2.20.1
> 

The patch itself is good, if the commit log is fixed:

Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>

thanks,
Ming

  reply	other threads:[~2019-05-15  8:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-13  6:37 fix nr_phys_segments vs iterators accounting Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-13  6:37 ` [PATCH 01/10] block: don't decrement nr_phys_segments for physically contigous segments Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-13  9:45   ` Ming Lei
2019-05-13 12:03     ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-13 12:37       ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-14  4:36       ` Ming Lei
2019-05-14  5:14         ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-14  9:05           ` Ming Lei
2019-05-14 13:51             ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-14 13:57               ` Hannes Reinecke
2019-05-14 14:27               ` Ming Lei
2019-05-14 14:31                 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-14 14:32                   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-13  6:37 ` [PATCH 02/10] block: force an unlimited segment size on queues with a virt boundary Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-15  8:19   ` Ming Lei
2019-05-13  6:37 ` [PATCH 03/10] block: remove the segment size check in bio_will_gap Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-15  8:34   ` Ming Lei [this message]
2019-05-13  6:37 ` [PATCH 04/10] block: remove the bi_seg_{front,back}_size fields in struct bio Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-13  6:37 ` [PATCH 05/10] block: initialize the write priority in blk_rq_bio_prep Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-13 15:04   ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
2019-05-13  6:37 ` [PATCH 06/10] block: remove blk_init_request_from_bio Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-13  6:37 ` [PATCH 07/10] block: remove the bi_phys_segments field in struct bio Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-13  6:37 ` [PATCH 08/10] block: simplify blk_recalc_rq_segments Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-13  6:37 ` [PATCH 09/10] block: untangle the end of blk_bio_segment_split Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-13  6:37 ` [PATCH 10/10] block: mark blk_rq_bio_prep as inline Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-13 14:57   ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
     [not found] ` <CGME20190513063855epcas5p33ef8c4c0a0055bd0b66eadc859796f0f@epcms2p6>
2019-05-13  7:34   ` [PATCH 05/10] block: initialize the write priority in blk_rq_bio_prep Minwoo Im

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=20190515083455.GC23052@ming.t460p \
    --to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@fb.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mb@lightnvm.io \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.