On 1/11/24 9:06 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 09:00:20AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Now that we don't set a dummy profile, if someone registers and actual
>> profile, flag the queue as such.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> block/blk-integrity.c | 14 +++++++++-----
>> include/linux/blkdev.h | 1 +
>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/blk-integrity.c b/block/blk-integrity.c
>> index a1ea1794c7c8..974af93de2da 100644
>> --- a/block/blk-integrity.c
>> +++ b/block/blk-integrity.c
>> @@ -339,22 +339,25 @@ const struct attribute_group blk_integrity_attr_group = {
>> */
>> void blk_integrity_register(struct gendisk *disk, struct blk_integrity *template)
>> {
>> - struct blk_integrity *bi = &disk->queue->integrity;
>> + struct request_queue *q = disk->queue;
>> + struct blk_integrity *bi = &q->integrity;
>>
>> bi->flags = BLK_INTEGRITY_VERIFY | BLK_INTEGRITY_GENERATE |
>> template->flags;
>> bi->interval_exp = template->interval_exp ? :
>> - ilog2(queue_logical_block_size(disk->queue));
>> + ilog2(queue_logical_block_size(q));
>> bi->profile = template->profile;
>> + if (bi->profile)
>> + blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_INTG_PROFILE, q);
>
> Is this really so much better vs just checking for bi->profile
> being non-NULL?
Before we can check that, we have to load
bio->bi_bdev->bd_disk->queue->integrity, and we have to call in to
bio_integrity_prep() as well needlessly. We could do that in patch 3 and
then we just need to load q->integrity->profile, and while queue_flags
is certainly hot, it's probably not a huge deal to load that cacheline.
I think if we do that, we stick integrity before limits.
I can make that change, and then we can drop the flag.
--
Jens Axboe
