On Tue, Mar 28 2017 at 2:50pm -0400,
Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 10:33 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd.c b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> > index af632e350ab4..b6f70a09a301 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> > @@ -748,7 +748,7 @@ static int sd_setup_unmap_cmnd(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
> > return scsi_init_io(cmd);
> > }
> >
> > -static int sd_setup_write_same16_cmnd(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
> > +static int sd_setup_write_same16_cmnd(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd, bool unmap)
> > {
> > struct scsi_device *sdp = cmd->device;
> > struct request *rq = cmd->request;
> > @@ -765,13 +765,14 @@ static int sd_setup_write_same16_cmnd(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
> >
> > cmd->cmd_len = 16;
> > cmd->cmnd[0] = WRITE_SAME_16;
> > - cmd->cmnd[1] = 0x8; /* UNMAP */
> > + if (unmap)
> > + cmd->cmnd[1] = 0x8; /* UNMAP */
> > put_unaligned_be64(sector, &cmd->cmnd[2]);
> > put_unaligned_be32(nr_sectors, &cmd->cmnd[10]);
>
> Hello Christoph,
>
> A quote from SBC: "An OPTIMAL UNMAP GRANULARITY field set to a non-zero value
> indicates the optimal granularity in logical blocks for unmap requests (e.g.,
> an UNMAP command or a WRITE SAME (16) command with the UNMAP bit set to one).
> An unmap request with a number of logical blocks that is not a multiple of
> this value may result in unmap operations on fewer LBAs than requested."
>
> This means that just like the start and end of a discard must be aligned on a
> discard_granularity boundary, WRITE SAME commands with the UNMAP bit set must
> also respect that granularity. I think this means that either
> __blkdev_issue_zeroout() has to be modified such that it rejects unaligned
> REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES operations or that blk_bio_write_same_split() has to be
> modified such that it generates REQ_OP_WRITEs for the unaligned start and tail.
That'd get DM thinp off the hook from having to zero the unaligned start
and tail...
