All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	ris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
	Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
	xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] block: don't merge adjacent bvecs to one segment in bio blk_queue_split
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:21:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190311142106.GB7850@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190309013737.27741-3-ming.lei@redhat.com>

On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 09:37:33AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> For normal filesystem IO, each page is added via blk_add_page(),
> in which bvec(page) merge has been handled already, and basically
> not possible to merge two adjacent bvecs in one bio.
> 
> So not try to merge two adjacent bvecs in blk_queue_split(), also add
> check if one page is mergeable to current bvec in bio_add_page() for
> avoiding to break XEN.

Isn't this two entirely different things?  Both look good to me,
but I don't understand why this is one patch vs two.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
	ris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
	Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] block: don't merge adjacent bvecs to one segment in bio blk_queue_split
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:21:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190311142106.GB7850@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190309013737.27741-3-ming.lei@redhat.com>

On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 09:37:33AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> For normal filesystem IO, each page is added via blk_add_page(),
> in which bvec(page) merge has been handled already, and basically
> not possible to merge two adjacent bvecs in one bio.
> 
> So not try to merge two adjacent bvecs in blk_queue_split(), also add
> check if one page is mergeable to current bvec in bio_add_page() for
> avoiding to break XEN.

Isn't this two entirely different things?  Both look good to me,
but I don't understand why this is one patch vs two.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

  reply	other threads:[~2019-03-11 14:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-03-09  1:37 [PATCH 0/6] block: enable multi-page bvec for passthrough IO Ming Lei
2019-03-09  1:37 ` Ming Lei
2019-03-09  1:37 ` [PATCH 1/6] block: pass page to xen_biovec_phys_mergeable Ming Lei
2019-03-09  1:37   ` Ming Lei
2019-03-11 14:16   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-03-11 14:16     ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-03-11 19:57   ` Boris Ostrovsky
2019-03-11 19:57     ` Boris Ostrovsky
2019-03-09  1:37 ` [PATCH 2/6] block: don't merge adjacent bvecs to one segment in bio blk_queue_split Ming Lei
2019-03-09  1:37   ` Ming Lei
2019-03-11 14:21   ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2019-03-11 14:21     ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-03-12  1:22     ` Ming Lei
2019-03-12  1:22       ` Ming Lei
2019-03-11 19:58   ` Boris Ostrovsky
2019-03-11 19:58     ` Boris Ostrovsky
2019-03-09  1:37 ` [PATCH 3/6] block: check if page is mergeable in one helper Ming Lei
2019-03-11 14:23   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-03-17  8:05     ` Ming Lei
2019-03-09  1:37 ` [PATCH 4/6] block: put the same page when adding it to bio Ming Lei
2019-03-11 14:28   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-03-09  1:37 ` [PATCH 5/6] block: enable multi-page bvec for passthrough IO Ming Lei
2019-03-11 14:35   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-03-12  1:06     ` Ming Lei
2019-03-09  1:37 ` [PATCH 6/6] block: don't check if adjacent bvecs in one bio can be mergeable Ming Lei
2019-03-11 14:40   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-03-12  1:19     ` Ming Lei

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=20190311142106.GB7850@lst.de \
    --to=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
    --cc=jgross@suse.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=osandov@fb.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
    /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.