On Thu, Sep 24 2020 at 9:09pm -0400, Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2020/09/25 4:14, Sudhakar Panneerselvam wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 24 Sep 2020, Sudhakar Panneerselvam wrote: > >> > >>>> By copying it to a temporary aligned buffer and issuing I/O on this > >>>> buffer. > >>> > >>> I don't like this idea. Because, you need to allocate additional pages > >>> for the entire I/O size(for the misaligned case, if you think through > >> > >> You can break the I/O to smaller pieces. You can use mempool for > >> pre-allocation of the pages. > > > > Assuming we do this, how is this code simpler(based on your > > comment below) than the fix in dm-crypt? In fact, this approach > > would make the code change look bad in vhost, at the same time > > having performance penalty. By doing this, we are just moving the > > responsibility to other unrelated component. > > Because vhost is at the top of the block-io food chain. Fixing the unaligned > segments there will ensure that it does not matter what device is under it. It > will work. Right, I agree. This should be addressed in vhost-scsi. And vhost-scsi probably needs to be interfacing through block core to submit IO that respects the limits of its underlying block device. So please lift your proposed dm-crypt changes to vhost-scsi: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11781207/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11781053/ Maybe work with vhost-scsi maintainers to see about making the code reusable in block core; so that any future unaligned application IO is dealt in other drivers using the same common code. But I'm not interested in taking these changes into dm-crypt: NAK > I am still baffled that the unaligned segments go through in the first place... > Do we have something missing in the BIO code ? Cc'ing linux-block, could be. Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx https://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
