Cc Kent and Keith.
Follows another version which should be more efficient.
Kent and Keith, I appreciate much if you may give a review on it.
diff --git a/include/linux/bio.h b/include/linux/bio.h
index 56d2db8..ef45fec 100644
--- a/include/linux/bio.h
+++ b/include/linux/bio.h
@@ -278,11 +278,21 @@ static inline void bio_get_first_bvec(struct bio *bio, struct bio_vec *bv)
*/
static inline void bio_get_last_bvec(struct bio *bio, struct bio_vec *bv)
{
- struct bvec_iter iter;
+ struct bvec_iter iter = bio->bi_iter;
+ int idx;
+
+ bio_advance_iter(bio, &iter, iter.bi_size);
+
+ WARN_ON(!iter.bi_idx && !iter.bi_bvec_done);
+
+ if (!iter.bi_bvec_done)
+ idx = iter.bi_idx - 1;
+ else /* in the middle of bvec */
+ idx = iter.bi_idx;
- bio_for_each_segment(*bv, bio, iter)
- if (bv->bv_len == iter.bi_size)
- break;
+ *bv = bio->bi_io_vec[idx];
+ if (iter.bi_bvec_done)
+ bv->bv_len = iter.bi_bvec_done;
}
/*
This looks good too.
However, given that it's a regression bug fix I'm not sure it's the best
idea to add logic here.
But the issue is obviously in bio_will_gap(), isn't it?
Simply reverting 52cc6eead9095(block: blk-merge: fast-clone bio when splitting rw bios)
still might cause performance regression too.
That's correct. I assume that the bio splitting code affects
specific I/O pattern (gappy), however bio_will_gap is also tested
for bio merges (even if the bios won't merge eventually). This means
that each merge check will invoke bio_advance_iter() which is something
I'd like to avoid...
--
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
