* [RFC] block: avoid the unnecessary blk_bio_discard_split()
@ 2020-12-06 6:15 Tom Yan
2020-12-06 10:16 ` Sergei Shtylyov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tom Yan @ 2020-12-06 6:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-block; +Cc: linux-scsi, linux-ide, Tom Yan
It doesn't seem necessary to have the redundant layer of splitting.
The request size will even be more consistent / aligned to the cap.
Signed-off-by: Tom Yan <tom.ty89@gmail.com>
---
block/blk-lib.c | 5 ++++-
block/blk-merge.c | 2 +-
block/blk.h | 8 ++++++--
3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-lib.c b/block/blk-lib.c
index e90614fd8d6a..f606184a9050 100644
--- a/block/blk-lib.c
+++ b/block/blk-lib.c
@@ -85,9 +85,12 @@ int __blkdev_issue_discard(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
* is split in device drive, the split ones are very probably
* to be aligned to discard_granularity of the device's queue.
*/
- if (granularity_aligned_lba == sector_mapped)
+ if (granularity_aligned_lba == sector_mapped) {
req_sects = min_t(sector_t, nr_sects,
bio_aligned_discard_max_sectors(q));
+ if (!req_sects)
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+ }
else
req_sects = min_t(sector_t, nr_sects,
granularity_aligned_lba - sector_mapped);
diff --git a/block/blk-merge.c b/block/blk-merge.c
index bcf5e4580603..2439216585d9 100644
--- a/block/blk-merge.c
+++ b/block/blk-merge.c
@@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ static inline bool req_gap_front_merge(struct request *req, struct bio *bio)
return bio_will_gap(req->q, NULL, bio, req->bio);
}
+/* deprecated */
static struct bio *blk_bio_discard_split(struct request_queue *q,
struct bio *bio,
struct bio_set *bs,
@@ -303,7 +304,6 @@ void __blk_queue_split(struct bio **bio, unsigned int *nr_segs)
switch (bio_op(*bio)) {
case REQ_OP_DISCARD:
case REQ_OP_SECURE_ERASE:
- split = blk_bio_discard_split(q, *bio, &q->bio_split, nr_segs);
break;
case REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES:
split = blk_bio_write_zeroes_split(q, *bio, &q->bio_split,
diff --git a/block/blk.h b/block/blk.h
index dfab98465db9..e7e31a8c4930 100644
--- a/block/blk.h
+++ b/block/blk.h
@@ -281,8 +281,12 @@ static inline unsigned int bio_allowed_max_sectors(struct request_queue *q)
static inline unsigned int bio_aligned_discard_max_sectors(
struct request_queue *q)
{
- return round_down(UINT_MAX, q->limits.discard_granularity) >>
- SECTOR_SHIFT;
+ unsigned int discard_max_sectors, granularity;
+ discard_max_sectors = min(q->limits.max_discard_sectors,
+ bio_allowed_max_sectors(q));
+ /* Zero-sector (unknown) and one-sector granularities are the same. */
+ granularity = max(q->limits.discard_granularity >> SECTOR_SHIFT, 1U)
+ return round_down(max, granularity);
}
/*
--
2.29.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] block: avoid the unnecessary blk_bio_discard_split()
2020-12-06 6:15 [RFC] block: avoid the unnecessary blk_bio_discard_split() Tom Yan
@ 2020-12-06 10:16 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2020-12-10 11:37 ` [RFC v2] " Tom Yan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Sergei Shtylyov @ 2020-12-06 10:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Yan, linux-block; +Cc: linux-scsi, linux-ide
Hello!
On 06.12.2020 9:15, Tom Yan wrote:
> It doesn't seem necessary to have the redundant layer of splitting.
> The request size will even be more consistent / aligned to the cap.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tom Yan <tom.ty89@gmail.com>
> ---
> block/blk-lib.c | 5 ++++-
> block/blk-merge.c | 2 +-
> block/blk.h | 8 ++++++--
> 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-lib.c b/block/blk-lib.c
> index e90614fd8d6a..f606184a9050 100644
> --- a/block/blk-lib.c
> +++ b/block/blk-lib.c
> @@ -85,9 +85,12 @@ int __blkdev_issue_discard(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
> * is split in device drive, the split ones are very probably
> * to be aligned to discard_granularity of the device's queue.
> */
> - if (granularity_aligned_lba == sector_mapped)
> + if (granularity_aligned_lba == sector_mapped) {
> req_sects = min_t(sector_t, nr_sects,
> bio_aligned_discard_max_sectors(q));
> + if (!req_sects)
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + }
> else
Needs to be } else { according to the CodingStyle doc...
> req_sects = min_t(sector_t, nr_sects,
> granularity_aligned_lba - sector_mapped);
[...]
MBR, Sergei
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [RFC v2] block: avoid the unnecessary blk_bio_discard_split()
2020-12-06 10:16 ` Sergei Shtylyov
@ 2020-12-10 11:37 ` Tom Yan
2020-12-11 16:13 ` [RFC v3] " Tom Yan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tom Yan @ 2020-12-10 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-block, sergei.shtylyov; +Cc: linux-scsi, linux-ide, Tom Yan
It doesn't seem necessary to have the redundant layer of splitting.
The request size will even be more consistent / aligned to the cap.
Signed-off-by: Tom Yan <tom.ty89@gmail.com>
---
block/blk-lib.c | 7 +++++--
block/blk-merge.c | 2 +-
block/blk.h | 8 ++++++--
3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-lib.c b/block/blk-lib.c
index e90614fd8d6a..3b75c1c4ba17 100644
--- a/block/blk-lib.c
+++ b/block/blk-lib.c
@@ -85,12 +85,15 @@ int __blkdev_issue_discard(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
* is split in device drive, the split ones are very probably
* to be aligned to discard_granularity of the device's queue.
*/
- if (granularity_aligned_lba == sector_mapped)
+ if (granularity_aligned_lba == sector_mapped) {
req_sects = min_t(sector_t, nr_sects,
bio_aligned_discard_max_sectors(q));
- else
+ if (!req_sects)
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+ } else {
req_sects = min_t(sector_t, nr_sects,
granularity_aligned_lba - sector_mapped);
+ }
WARN_ON_ONCE((req_sects << 9) > UINT_MAX);
diff --git a/block/blk-merge.c b/block/blk-merge.c
index 97b7c2821565..f4e030fe6399 100644
--- a/block/blk-merge.c
+++ b/block/blk-merge.c
@@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ static inline bool req_gap_front_merge(struct request *req, struct bio *bio)
return bio_will_gap(req->q, NULL, bio, req->bio);
}
+/* deprecated */
static struct bio *blk_bio_discard_split(struct request_queue *q,
struct bio *bio,
struct bio_set *bs,
@@ -303,7 +304,6 @@ void __blk_queue_split(struct bio **bio, unsigned int *nr_segs)
switch (bio_op(*bio)) {
case REQ_OP_DISCARD:
case REQ_OP_SECURE_ERASE:
- split = blk_bio_discard_split(q, *bio, &q->bio_split, nr_segs);
break;
case REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES:
split = blk_bio_write_zeroes_split(q, *bio, &q->bio_split,
diff --git a/block/blk.h b/block/blk.h
index dfab98465db9..e7e31a8c4930 100644
--- a/block/blk.h
+++ b/block/blk.h
@@ -281,8 +281,12 @@ static inline unsigned int bio_allowed_max_sectors(struct request_queue *q)
static inline unsigned int bio_aligned_discard_max_sectors(
struct request_queue *q)
{
- return round_down(UINT_MAX, q->limits.discard_granularity) >>
- SECTOR_SHIFT;
+ unsigned int discard_max_sectors, granularity;
+ discard_max_sectors = min(q->limits.max_discard_sectors,
+ bio_allowed_max_sectors(q));
+ /* Zero-sector (unknown) and one-sector granularities are the same. */
+ granularity = max(q->limits.discard_granularity >> SECTOR_SHIFT, 1U)
+ return round_down(max, granularity);
}
/*
--
2.29.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [RFC v3] block: avoid the unnecessary blk_bio_discard_split()
2020-12-10 11:37 ` [RFC v2] " Tom Yan
@ 2020-12-11 16:13 ` Tom Yan
2020-12-12 2:01 ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tom Yan @ 2020-12-11 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-block; +Cc: linux-scsi, linux-ide, Tom Yan
It doesn't seem necessary to have the redundant layer of splitting.
The request size will even be more consistent / aligned to the cap.
Signed-off-by: Tom Yan <tom.ty89@gmail.com>
---
block/blk-lib.c | 11 +++++++++--
block/blk-merge.c | 2 +-
block/blk.h | 8 ++++++--
3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-lib.c b/block/blk-lib.c
index e90614fd8d6a..cbf55c9f0d6f 100644
--- a/block/blk-lib.c
+++ b/block/blk-lib.c
@@ -85,12 +85,19 @@ int __blkdev_issue_discard(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
* is split in device drive, the split ones are very probably
* to be aligned to discard_granularity of the device's queue.
*/
- if (granularity_aligned_lba == sector_mapped)
+ if (granularity_aligned_lba == sector_mapped) {
req_sects = min_t(sector_t, nr_sects,
bio_aligned_discard_max_sectors(q));
- else
+ if (!req_sects)
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+ } else {
req_sects = min_t(sector_t, nr_sects,
granularity_aligned_lba - sector_mapped);
+ }
+
+ /* Zero-sector (unknown) and one-sector granularities are the same. */
+ granularity = max(q->limits.discard_granularity >> SECTOR_SHIFT, 1U);
+ req_sects = round_down(req_sects, granularity);
WARN_ON_ONCE((req_sects << 9) > UINT_MAX);
diff --git a/block/blk-merge.c b/block/blk-merge.c
index 97b7c2821565..f4e030fe6399 100644
--- a/block/blk-merge.c
+++ b/block/blk-merge.c
@@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ static inline bool req_gap_front_merge(struct request *req, struct bio *bio)
return bio_will_gap(req->q, NULL, bio, req->bio);
}
+/* deprecated */
static struct bio *blk_bio_discard_split(struct request_queue *q,
struct bio *bio,
struct bio_set *bs,
@@ -303,7 +304,6 @@ void __blk_queue_split(struct bio **bio, unsigned int *nr_segs)
switch (bio_op(*bio)) {
case REQ_OP_DISCARD:
case REQ_OP_SECURE_ERASE:
- split = blk_bio_discard_split(q, *bio, &q->bio_split, nr_segs);
break;
case REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES:
split = blk_bio_write_zeroes_split(q, *bio, &q->bio_split,
diff --git a/block/blk.h b/block/blk.h
index dfab98465db9..508371fafdf3 100644
--- a/block/blk.h
+++ b/block/blk.h
@@ -281,8 +281,12 @@ static inline unsigned int bio_allowed_max_sectors(struct request_queue *q)
static inline unsigned int bio_aligned_discard_max_sectors(
struct request_queue *q)
{
- return round_down(UINT_MAX, q->limits.discard_granularity) >>
- SECTOR_SHIFT;
+ unsigned int discard_max_sectors, granularity;
+ discard_max_sectors = min(q->limits.max_discard_sectors,
+ bio_allowed_max_sectors(q));
+ /* Zero-sector (unknown) and one-sector granularities are the same. */
+ granularity = max(q->limits.discard_granularity >> SECTOR_SHIFT, 1U);
+ return round_down(discard_max_sectors, granularity);
}
/*
--
2.29.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC v3] block: avoid the unnecessary blk_bio_discard_split()
2020-12-11 16:13 ` [RFC v3] " Tom Yan
@ 2020-12-12 2:01 ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Chaitanya Kulkarni @ 2020-12-12 2:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Yan, linux-block; +Cc: linux-scsi, linux-ide
On 12/11/20 08:17, Tom Yan wrote:
> It doesn't seem necessary to have the redundant layer of splitting.
> The request size will even be more consistent / aligned to the cap.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tom Yan <tom.ty89@gmail.com>
Can you please explain why the change log is missing ?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-12-12 2:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-12-06 6:15 [RFC] block: avoid the unnecessary blk_bio_discard_split() Tom Yan
2020-12-06 10:16 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2020-12-10 11:37 ` [RFC v2] " Tom Yan
2020-12-11 16:13 ` [RFC v3] " Tom Yan
2020-12-12 2:01 ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
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).