On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Keith Busch <keith.busch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 02:53:22PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Ming Lei <tom.leiming@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > bvec_iter_advance() can split anywhere, but the splitted bios may
>> > cross one same bvec, which may cause trouble,
>
> Cross? One starts where the other starts. Could you please explain what's
> wrong?
Suppose bio is splitted as bio1 and bio2, then the last bvec of bio1 is same
with the first bvec of bio2.
>
>> > for example,
>> > BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE() may not work well and
>> > blk_phys_contig_segment() too.
>
> Could you please explain why it may not work well? I have no idea what
> concern you have with BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE in this case.
>
> The only place blk_phys_contig_segment is called from is
> ll_merge_requests, and the first req of the split bio wouldn't even go
> through here because it's marked REQ_NOMERGE.
OK, looks I forget this change.
>
>> blk_rq_map_sg() isn't ready for splitting in the middle of bvec too.
>
> Could you please explain? It just uses the bio iterator, which I'm pretty
> sure is not broken.
Please see the 1st line code of __blk_segment_map_sg(), in which only
one whole bvec is handled, and partial bvec can't be figured out there.
Think of it further, drivers often use bv.bv_len directly in the
iterator, for example:
bio_for_each_segment(bvec, bio, iter)
memcpy(page_address(bvec.bv_page) +
bvec.bv_offset, addr +
offset, bvec.bv_len);
So your patch will break these drivers, won't it?
--
Ming Lei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
