On 5/21/24 16:08, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
On 21/05/24 09:11AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 5/20/24 12:20, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
Before enabling copy for dm target, check if underlying devices and
dm target support copy. Avoid split happening inside dm target.
Fail early if the request needs split, currently splitting copy
request is not supported.
Signed-off-by: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
@@ -397,6 +397,9 @@ struct dm_target {
* bio_set_dev(). NOTE: ideally a target should _not_ need this.
*/
bool needs_bio_set_dev:1;
+
+ /* copy offload is supported */
+ bool copy_offload_supported:1;
};
void *dm_per_bio_data(struct bio *bio, size_t data_size);
Errm. Not sure this will work. DM tables might be arbitrarily,
requiring us to _split_ the copy offload request according to the
underlying component devices. But we explicitly disallowed a split in
one of the earlier patches.
Or am I wrong?
Yes you are right w.r.to split, we disallow split.
But this flag indicates whether we support copy offload in dm-target or
not. At present we support copy offload only in dm-linear.
For other dm-target, eventhough underlaying device supports copy
offload, dm-target based on it wont support copy offload.
If the present series get merged, we can test and integrate more
targets.
But dm-linear can be concatenated, too; you can easily use dm-linear
to tie several devices together.
Which again would require a copy-offload range to be split.
Hmm?
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Frankenstr. 146, 90461 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), GF: I. Totev, A. McDonald, W. Knoblich
