On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 04:10:32PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> We always have exactly one segment, so we can simply call dma_map_bvec.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/nvme/host/pci.c | 23 ++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c b/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
> index bc4ee869fe82..a7dad24e0406 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
> @@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ struct nvme_iod {
> int npages; /* In the PRP list. 0 means small pool in use */
> int nents; /* Used in scatterlist */
> dma_addr_t first_dma;
> - struct scatterlist meta_sg; /* metadata requires single contiguous buffer */
> + dma_addr_t meta_dma;
> struct scatterlist *sg;
> struct scatterlist inline_sg[0];
> };
> @@ -592,13 +592,16 @@ static void nvme_unmap_data(struct nvme_dev *dev, struct request *req)
> dma_addr_t dma_addr = iod->first_dma, next_dma_addr;
> int i;
>
> + if (blk_integrity_rq(req)) {
> + dma_unmap_page(dev->dev, iod->meta_dma,
> + rq_integrity_vec(req)->bv_len, dma_dir);
> + }
> +
> if (iod->nents) {
> /* P2PDMA requests do not need to be unmapped */
> if (!is_pci_p2pdma_page(sg_page(iod->sg)))
> dma_unmap_sg(dev->dev, iod->sg, iod->nents, dma_dir);
>
> - if (blk_integrity_rq(req))
> - dma_unmap_sg(dev->dev, &iod->meta_sg, 1, dma_dir);
> }
>
> if (iod->npages == 0)
> @@ -861,17 +864,11 @@ static blk_status_t nvme_map_data(struct nvme_dev *dev, struct request *req,
>
> ret = BLK_STS_IOERR;
> if (blk_integrity_rq(req)) {
> - if (blk_rq_count_integrity_sg(q, req->bio) != 1)
> - goto out;
> -
> - sg_init_table(&iod->meta_sg, 1);
> - if (blk_rq_map_integrity_sg(q, req->bio, &iod->meta_sg) != 1)
> - goto out;
> -
> - if (!dma_map_sg(dev->dev, &iod->meta_sg, 1, dma_dir))
> + iod->meta_dma = dma_map_bvec(dev->dev, rq_integrity_vec(req),
> + dma_dir, 0);
Hi Christoph,
When one bio is enough big, the generated integrity data could cross
more than one pages even though the data is still in single segment.
However, we don't convert to multi-page bvec for bio_integrity_prep(),
and each page may consume one bvec, so is it possible for this patch to
cause issues in case of NVMe's protection? Since this patch supposes
that there is only one bvec for integrity data.
BTW, not see such kind of report, just a concern in theory.
thanks,
Ming
