Re: [PATCH V10 09/19] block: introduce bio_bvecs()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Not sure I understand the 'blocking' problem in this case.

We can build a bvec table from this req, and send them all
in send(),

I would like to avoid growing bvec tables and keep everything
preallocated. Plus, a bvec_iter operates on a bvec which means
we'll need a table there as well... Not liking it so far...

can this way avoid your blocking issue? You may see this
example in branch 'rq->bio != rq->biotail' of lo_rw_aio().

This is exactly an example of not ignoring the bios...

If this way is what you need, I think you are right, even we may
introduce the following helpers:

	rq_for_each_bvec()
	rq_bvecs()

I'm not sure how this helps me either. Unless we can set a bvec_iter to
span bvecs or have an abstract bio crossing when we re-initialize the
bvec_iter I don't see how I can ignore bios completely...

So looks nvme-tcp host driver might be the 2nd driver which benefits
from multi-page bvec directly.

The multi-page bvec V11 has passed my tests and addressed almost
all the comments during review on V10. I removed bio_vecs() in V11,
but it won't be big deal, we can introduce them anytime when there
is the requirement.

multipage-bvecs and nvme-tcp are going to conflict, so it would be good
to coordinate on this. I think that nvme-tcp host needs some adjustments
as setting a bvec_iter. I'm under the impression that the change is rather small and self-contained, but I'm not sure I have the full
picture here.

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel



[Index of Archives]     [DM Crypt]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux