From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: axboe@fb.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] block: don't decrement nr_phys_segments for physically contigous segments
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 09:04:35 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190521010434.GA14268@ming.t460p> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190520111141.GA5137@lst.de>
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 01:11:41PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 09:17:04PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > ll_merge_requests_fn() is only called from attempt_merge() in case
> > that ELEVATOR_BACK_MERGE is returned from blk_try_req_merge(). However,
> > for discard merge of both virtio_blk and nvme, ELEVATOR_DISCARD_MERGE is
> > always returned from blk_try_req_merge() in attempt_merge(), so looks
> > ll_merge_requests_fn() shouldn't be called for virtio_blk/nvme's discard
> > request. Just wondering if you may explain a bit how the change on
> > ll_merge_requests_fn() in this patch makes a difference on the above
> > two commits?
>
> Good question. I've seen virtio overwriting its range, but I think
> this might have been been with a series to actually decrement
> nr_phys_segments for all cases where we can merge the tail and front
> bvecs. So mainline probably doesn't see it unless someone calls
> blk_recalc_rq_segments due to a partial completion or when using
> dm-multipath. Thinking of it at least the latter seems like a real
> possibily, although a rather unlikely use case.
This patch shouldn't effect discard IO in case of partial completion too
cause blk_recalc_rq_segments() always return 0 for discard IO w/wo this
patch.
However looks this way is wrong, the following patch may help for this
case:
diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
index 1aafeb923e7b..302667887ea1 100644
--- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
+++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
@@ -1109,7 +1109,12 @@ static inline unsigned short blk_rq_nr_phys_segments(struct request *rq)
*/
static inline unsigned short blk_rq_nr_discard_segments(struct request *rq)
{
- return max_t(unsigned short, rq->nr_phys_segments, 1);
+ struct bio *bio;
+ unsigned shart segs = 0;
+
+ __rq_for_each_bio(bio, rq)
+ segs++;
+ return segs;
}
extern int blk_rq_map_sg(struct request_queue *, struct request *, struct scatterlist *);
Or re-calculate the segment number in this way for multi-range discard IO in
__blk_recalc_rq_segments().
Thanks,
Ming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-21 1:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-16 8:40 fix nr_phys_segments vs iterators accounting v2 Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-16 8:40 ` [PATCH 1/4] block: don't decrement nr_phys_segments for physically contigous segments Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-16 8:48 ` Hannes Reinecke
2019-05-16 13:17 ` Ming Lei
2019-05-17 23:02 ` Ming Lei
2019-05-20 11:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-21 1:04 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2019-05-16 8:40 ` [PATCH 2/4] block: force an unlimited segment size on queues with a virt boundary Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-16 8:49 ` Hannes Reinecke
2019-05-16 8:40 ` [PATCH 3/4] block: remove the segment size check in bio_will_gap Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-16 8:49 ` Hannes Reinecke
2019-05-16 8:40 ` [PATCH 4/4] block: remove the bi_seg_{front,back}_size fields in struct bio Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-16 8:50 ` Hannes Reinecke
2019-05-20 11:17 ` fix nr_phys_segments vs iterators accounting v2 Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-21 1:09 ` Jens Axboe
2019-05-21 1:17 ` Ming Lei
2019-05-21 1:20 ` Jens Axboe
2019-05-21 1:29 ` Ming Lei
2019-05-21 5:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-21 7:01 fix nr_phys_segments vs iterators accounting v3 Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-21 7:01 ` [PATCH 1/4] block: don't decrement nr_phys_segments for physically contigous segments Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-21 8:05 ` 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=20190521010434.GA14268@ming.t460p \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@fb.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.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 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).