On Wed, Jan 24 2024 at 12:35P -0500, Hongyu Jin <hongyu.jin.cn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Hongyu Jin <hongyu.jin@xxxxxxxxxx> > > High-priority tasks get data from dm-verity devices via RT IO priority, > I/O will lose RT priority when reading FEC and hash values via kworker > submission IO during verification, and the verification phase may be > blocked by low-priority IO. > > Dm-crypt has the same problem in the data writing process. > > This is because io_context and blkcg are missing. > > Move bio_set_ioprio() into submit_bio(): > 1. Only call bio_set_ioprio() once to set the priority of original bio, > the bio that cloned and splited from original bio will auto inherit > the priority of original bio in clone process. > > 2. Make the IO priority of the original bio to be passed to dm, > and the dm target inherits the IO priority as needed. > > Changes in v8: > - Rebase patch 1 on commit 7ed2632ec7d7 > Changes in v7: > - Modify patch 4: change dm-verity-fec.c > Changes in v6: > - Rebase patch and resolve conflict for patch 1, 3, 4 > - Modify patch 4: fec_read_parity() follow the priority of original > bio > - Update commit message > Changes in v5: > - Rewrite patch 2, add ioprio parameter in dm_io(); > - Modify dm_io() in patch 3 > Changes in v4: > - Modify commit message by Suggestion > - Modify patch for dm-crypt > Changes in v3: > - Split patch for device-mapper > - Add patch to fix dm-crypy I/O priority question > - Add block patch to review together > - Fix some error in v2 patch > Changes in v2: > - Add ioprio field in struct dm_io_region > - Initial struct dm_io_region::ioprio to IOPRIO_DEFAULT > - Add two interface > > > Hongyu Jin (5): > block: Fix bio IO priority setting > dm: Support I/O priority for dm_io() > dm-bufio: Support I/O priority > dm verity: Fix I/O priority lost when read FEC and hash > dm-crypt: Fix lost ioprio when queuing write bios Sorry for the delay.. I've been consumed with other work. I will look at this patchset for consideration for the 6.9 merge window (we still have time to make changes given we're now squarely in the 6.9 development window). So I appreciate getting you feedback sooner rather than later is both useful and important. I see Eric provided his Reviewed-by for v7 -- that really helps. BUT, for some reason you didn't add his provided Reviewed-by to each commit when you rebased with v8... Mikulas, if you beat me to providing closer review: great. If not, that's cool. That DM requires such care (with sprinkling changes throughout DM core and targets) is unfortunate -- but could be unavoidable all things considered. I will look closer "soon" (if not this week then next). Thanks for following up! Mike
