From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V11 03/19] block: introduce bio_for_each_bvec()
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:10:25 +0100
Message-ID: <20181121161025.GB4977@lst.de>
References: <20181121032327.8434-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20181121032327.8434-4-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20181121133244.GB1640@lst.de> <20181121153135.GB19111@ming.t460p>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181121153135.GB19111@ming.t460p>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>, Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>, dm-devel@redhat.com, Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@huawei.com>, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, Boaz Harrosh <oo>
List-Id: linux-raid.ids

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:31:36PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > But while looking over this I wonder why we even need the max_seg_len
> > here.  The only thing __bvec_iter_advance does it to move bi_bvec_done
> > and bi_idx forward, with corresponding decrements of bi_size.  As far
> > as I can tell the only thing that max_seg_len does is that we need
> > to more iterations of the while loop to archive the same thing.
> > 
> > And actual bvec used by the caller will be obtained using
> > bvec_iter_bvec or segment_iter_bvec depending on if they want multi-page
> > or single-page variants.
> 
> Right, we let __bvec_iter_advance() serve for both multi-page and single-page
> case, then we have to tell it via one way or another, now we use the constant
> of 'max_seg_len'.
> 
> Or you suggest to implement two versions of __bvec_iter_advance()?

No - I think we can always use the code without any segment in
bvec_iter_advance.  Because bvec_iter_advance only operates on the
iteractor, the generation of an actual single-page or multi-page
bvec is left to the caller using the bvec_iter_bvec or segment_iter_bvec
helpers.  The only difference is how many bytes you can move the
iterator forward in a single loop iteration - so if you pass in
PAGE_SIZE as the max_seg_len you just will have to loop more often
for a large enough bytes, but not actually do anything different.

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=SuLc=OA=vger.kernel.org=linux-block-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CAA6C43441
	for <linux-block@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 16:10:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CABB52147D
	for <linux-block@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 16:10:36 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CABB52147D
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1731822AbeKVCpc (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-block@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 21 Nov 2018 21:45:32 -0500
Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:52312 "EHLO newverein.lst.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1730072AbeKVCpb (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-block@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 21 Nov 2018 21:45:31 -0500
Received: by newverein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407)
        id 9CF0768C19; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:10:25 +0100 (CET)
Date:   Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:10:25 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>, dm-devel@redhat.com,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>,
        linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
        linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
        linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@huawei.com>,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>,
        linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, Boaz Harrosh <ooo@electrozaur.com>,
        Bob Peterson <rpeterso@redhat.com>, cluster-devel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V11 03/19] block: introduce bio_for_each_bvec()
Message-ID: <20181121161025.GB4977@lst.de>
References: <20181121032327.8434-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20181121032327.8434-4-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20181121133244.GB1640@lst.de> <20181121153135.GB19111@ming.t460p>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181121153135.GB19111@ming.t460p>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-block.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:31:36PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > But while looking over this I wonder why we even need the max_seg_len
> > here.  The only thing __bvec_iter_advance does it to move bi_bvec_done
> > and bi_idx forward, with corresponding decrements of bi_size.  As far
> > as I can tell the only thing that max_seg_len does is that we need
> > to more iterations of the while loop to archive the same thing.
> > 
> > And actual bvec used by the caller will be obtained using
> > bvec_iter_bvec or segment_iter_bvec depending on if they want multi-page
> > or single-page variants.
> 
> Right, we let __bvec_iter_advance() serve for both multi-page and single-page
> case, then we have to tell it via one way or another, now we use the constant
> of 'max_seg_len'.
> 
> Or you suggest to implement two versions of __bvec_iter_advance()?

No - I think we can always use the code without any segment in
bvec_iter_advance.  Because bvec_iter_advance only operates on the
iteractor, the generation of an actual single-page or multi-page
bvec is left to the caller using the bvec_iter_bvec or segment_iter_bvec
helpers.  The only difference is how many bytes you can move the
iterator forward in a single loop iteration - so if you pass in
PAGE_SIZE as the max_seg_len you just will have to loop more often
for a large enough bytes, but not actually do anything different.

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:10:25 +0100
Subject: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH V11 03/19] block: introduce
	bio_for_each_bvec()
In-Reply-To: <20181121153135.GB19111@ming.t460p>
References: <20181121032327.8434-1-ming.lei@redhat.com>
	<20181121032327.8434-4-ming.lei@redhat.com>
	<20181121133244.GB1640@lst.de> <20181121153135.GB19111@ming.t460p>
Message-ID: <20181121161025.GB4977@lst.de>
List-Id: <cluster-devel.redhat.com>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:31:36PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > But while looking over this I wonder why we even need the max_seg_len
> > here.  The only thing __bvec_iter_advance does it to move bi_bvec_done
> > and bi_idx forward, with corresponding decrements of bi_size.  As far
> > as I can tell the only thing that max_seg_len does is that we need
> > to more iterations of the while loop to archive the same thing.
> > 
> > And actual bvec used by the caller will be obtained using
> > bvec_iter_bvec or segment_iter_bvec depending on if they want multi-page
> > or single-page variants.
> 
> Right, we let __bvec_iter_advance() serve for both multi-page and single-page
> case, then we have to tell it via one way or another, now we use the constant
> of 'max_seg_len'.
> 
> Or you suggest to implement two versions of __bvec_iter_advance()?

No - I think we can always use the code without any segment in
bvec_iter_advance.  Because bvec_iter_advance only operates on the
iteractor, the generation of an actual single-page or multi-page
bvec is left to the caller using the bvec_iter_bvec or segment_iter_bvec
helpers.  The only difference is how many bytes you can move the
iterator forward in a single loop iteration - so if you pass in
PAGE_SIZE as the max_seg_len you just will have to loop more often
for a large enough bytes, but not actually do anything different.