From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD66C433EF for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 07:02:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238596AbhKXHGD (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2021 02:06:03 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33792 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233601AbhKXHGD (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2021 02:06:03 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:e::133]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C21D6C061574; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 23:02:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=031Lzzl4d+xOUl0R6dbxENareszoxPdA01S4TGMveuI=; b=Aq9kKlNd/oBQClZqNHZX+NyBwg tA8/MzQHE/hfmBtNHRH4MYCKzosSeXGIkiJZyRIeDExhAVi8fOW4zaIygK8x7IetG3CHCpTBUKjra 1WXOdCZjY3rN/yxQye2Sg7KnaqPzXXmOYcXXl0PCK/6pHMhwvw8DoXuipb4mN+TgimY+U4lN9FQfE 2sOEcZDTEyiueDKEiCFpbT3GX17SsfVc/WspT5eYvjNMNrXJRyGhQL8a412FKWUlC4kxpXt3kqMRb dHQKVL1NXXZoMBs0C0cAk2m3KGi5VnDvtGX7N+yUQY3/PjmNiGXKzRHhRf7eyeqN13Ly8mwfId7tl JuShG7mw==; Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mpmIu-0042ri-AX; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 07:02:52 +0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 23:02:52 -0800 From: "hch@infradead.org" To: Qu Wenruo Cc: "hch@infradead.org" , Johannes Thumshirn , Linux FS Devel , "dm-devel@redhat.com" , "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Any bio_clone_slow() implementation which doesn't share bi_io_vec? Message-ID: References: <5d8351f1-1b09-bff0-02f2-a417c1669607@gmx.com> <79d38fc2-cd2f-2980-2c4e-408078ce6079@gmx.com> <133792e9-b89b-bc82-04fe-41202c3453a5@gmx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 02:18:00PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Just so simple? Then that's super awesome. > > But I'm a little concerned about the bio_add_hw_page() call in > bio_add_zoned_append(). > > It's not exactly the same as bio_add_page(). > > Does it mean as long as our splitted bio doesn't exceed zone limit, we > can do the convert without any further problem? You need to look at the limits when splitting. I have modified blk_bio_segment_split and exported it to deal with that. Let me split those changes out cleanly and push out a branch. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D05EAC433FE for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 07:06:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-120-YlxBXJhjOu-0V7yeqH88Pg-1; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 02:06:00 -0500 X-MC-Unique: YlxBXJhjOu-0V7yeqH88Pg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90C789F92C; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 07:05:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (colo-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.20]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C7D8ADDC; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 07:05:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.19.33]) by colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47DAB1809C8A; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 07:05:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) by lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 1AO72w7g004011 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 02:03:00 -0500 Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id 5C99340CFD26; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 07:02:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast05.extmail.prod.ext.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.55.21]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 045F24047568 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 07:02:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BA4D862F16 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 07:02:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-445-7c0aUYh5NhiNkDmn3BKyug-1; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 02:02:55 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 7c0aUYh5NhiNkDmn3BKyug-1 Received: from hch by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mpmIu-0042ri-AX; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 07:02:52 +0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 23:02:52 -0800 From: "hch@infradead.org" To: Qu Wenruo Message-ID: References: <5d8351f1-1b09-bff0-02f2-a417c1669607@gmx.com> <79d38fc2-cd2f-2980-2c4e-408078ce6079@gmx.com> <133792e9-b89b-bc82-04fe-41202c3453a5@gmx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html X-Mimecast-Impersonation-Protect: Policy=CLT - Impersonation Protection Definition; Similar Internal Domain=false; Similar Monitored External Domain=false; Custom External Domain=false; Mimecast External Domain=false; Newly Observed Domain=false; Internal User Name=false; Custom Display Name List=false; Reply-to Address Mismatch=false; Targeted Threat Dictionary=false; Mimecast Threat Dictionary=false; Custom Threat Dictionary=false X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.11.54.1 X-loop: dm-devel@redhat.com Cc: "hch@infradead.org" , Johannes Thumshirn , "dm-devel@redhat.com" , Linux FS Devel , "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [dm-devel] Any bio_clone_slow() implementation which doesn't share bi_io_vec? X-BeenThere: dm-devel@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: junk List-Id: device-mapper development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 02:18:00PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Just so simple? Then that's super awesome. > > But I'm a little concerned about the bio_add_hw_page() call in > bio_add_zoned_append(). > > It's not exactly the same as bio_add_page(). > > Does it mean as long as our splitted bio doesn't exceed zone limit, we > can do the convert without any further problem? You need to look at the limits when splitting. I have modified blk_bio_segment_split and exported it to deal with that. Let me split those changes out cleanly and push out a branch. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel