From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
Cc: tj@kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, dm-devel@redhat.com,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] can we reduce bio_set_dev overhead due to bio_associate_blkg?
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 21:39:55 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YkUwmyrIqnRGIOHm@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YkRM7Iyp8m6A1BCl@fedora>
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 08:28:28AM -0400, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> I think cloning is a special case that I might have gotten wrong. If
> there is a bio_set_dev() call after each clone(), then the
> bio_clone_blkg_association() is excess work. We'd need to audit how
> bio_alloc_clone() is being used to be safe. Alternatively, we could opt
> for a bio_alloc_clone_noblkg(), but that's a little bit uglier.
As of Linux 5.18, the cloning interfaces have changed and take
a block devie that the clone is intended to be used for, and bio_set_dev
is mostly (there is a few more sports to be cleaned up in
dm/md/bcache/btrfs) only used for remapping to a new device.
That being said I've eyed the code in bio_associate_blkg a bit and
I've been wondering about some of how it is implemented as well.
Is recursive throttling really a thing? i.e. we can have cgroup
policies on the upper (e.g. dm) device and then again on the lower
(e.g. nvme device)? I think the code currently supports that, and
if we want to keep that I don't really see much of a way to avoid
the lookup, but maybe we cn make it faster.
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-31 5:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-30 16:52 [dm-devel] can we reduce bio_set_dev overhead due to bio_associate_blkg? Mike Snitzer
2022-03-30 12:28 ` Dennis Zhou
2022-03-31 4:39 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2022-03-31 5:52 ` Dennis Zhou
2022-03-31 9:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-08 15:42 ` Mike Snitzer
2022-04-09 5:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-11 16:58 ` Mike Snitzer
2022-04-11 17:16 ` Mike Snitzer
2022-04-11 17:33 ` [dm-devel] [PATCH] block: remove redundant blk-cgroup init from __bio_clone Mike Snitzer
2022-04-12 5:27 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-12 7:52 ` Dennis Zhou
2022-04-23 16:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-26 17:30 ` [dm-devel] " Mike Snitzer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YkUwmyrIqnRGIOHm@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dennis@kernel.org \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=snitzer@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox