linux-block.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: axboe@fb.com
Cc: ming.lei@redhat.com, Matias Bjorling <mb@lightnvm.io>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 01/10] block: don't decrement nr_phys_segments for physically contigous segments
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 08:37:45 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190513063754.1520-2-hch@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190513063754.1520-1-hch@lst.de>

Currently ll_merge_requests_fn, unlike all other merge functions,
reduces nr_phys_segments by one if the last segment of the previous,
and the first segment of the next segement are contigous.  While this
seems like a nice solution to avoid building smaller than possible
requests it causes a mismatch between the segments actually present
in the request and those iterated over by the bvec iterators, including
__rq_for_each_bio.  This could cause overwrites of too small kmalloc
allocations in any driver using ranged discard, or also mistrigger
the single segment optimization in the nvme-pci driver.

We could possibly work around this by making the bvec iterators take
the front and back segment size into account, but that would require
moving them from the bio to the bio_iter and spreading this mess
over all users of bvecs.  Or we could simply remove this optimization
under the assumption that most users already build good enough bvecs,
and that the bio merge patch never cared about this optimization
either.  The latter is what this patch does.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
---
 block/blk-merge.c | 23 +----------------------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-merge.c b/block/blk-merge.c
index 21e87a714a73..80a5a0facb87 100644
--- a/block/blk-merge.c
+++ b/block/blk-merge.c
@@ -358,7 +358,6 @@ static unsigned int __blk_recalc_rq_segments(struct request_queue *q,
 	unsigned front_seg_size;
 	struct bio *fbio, *bbio;
 	struct bvec_iter iter;
-	bool new_bio = false;
 
 	if (!bio)
 		return 0;
@@ -379,31 +378,12 @@ static unsigned int __blk_recalc_rq_segments(struct request_queue *q,
 	nr_phys_segs = 0;
 	for_each_bio(bio) {
 		bio_for_each_bvec(bv, bio, iter) {
-			if (new_bio) {
-				if (seg_size + bv.bv_len
-				    > queue_max_segment_size(q))
-					goto new_segment;
-				if (!biovec_phys_mergeable(q, &bvprv, &bv))
-					goto new_segment;
-
-				seg_size += bv.bv_len;
-
-				if (nr_phys_segs == 1 && seg_size >
-						front_seg_size)
-					front_seg_size = seg_size;
-
-				continue;
-			}
-new_segment:
 			bvec_split_segs(q, &bv, &nr_phys_segs, &seg_size,
 					&front_seg_size, NULL, UINT_MAX);
-			new_bio = false;
 		}
 		bbio = bio;
-		if (likely(bio->bi_iter.bi_size)) {
+		if (likely(bio->bi_iter.bi_size))
 			bvprv = bv;
-			new_bio = true;
-		}
 	}
 
 	fbio->bi_seg_front_size = front_seg_size;
@@ -725,7 +705,6 @@ static int ll_merge_requests_fn(struct request_queue *q, struct request *req,
 			req->bio->bi_seg_front_size = seg_size;
 		if (next->nr_phys_segments == 1)
 			next->biotail->bi_seg_back_size = seg_size;
-		total_phys_segments--;
 	}
 
 	if (total_phys_segments > queue_max_segments(q))
-- 
2.20.1


  reply	other threads:[~2019-05-13  6:38 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 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2019-05-13  9:45   ` [PATCH 01/10] block: don't decrement nr_phys_segments for physically contigous segments 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
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=20190513063754.1520-2-hch@lst.de \
    --to=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=axboe@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mb@lightnvm.io \
    --cc=ming.lei@redhat.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).