Re: [Drbd-dev] [PATCH v5 01/11] block: make generic_make_request handle arbitrarily sized bios

[Ming Lin <mlin@kernel.org>]

On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 13:36 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 10:58:22PM -0700, Ming Lin wrote:
> > I think the important thing is the late splitting for regular bio.
> > For discard/write_same bio, how about just don't do late splitting?
> 
> I'd hate having to special case them even more.  Especially as the
> discard splitting is nasty and we really don't want to send giant
> discards by default anyway (see Jens' patches to limit discard size
> by default).
> 
> So I'd recommend to keep everything as-is, just make sure we don't
> overflow bi_size.

Did you mean to remove "PATCH 4 block: remove split code in
blkdev_issue_discard" or to keep it?

Which of below 2 solutions you prefer?

- Solution 1

remove splits in blkdev_issue_{discard,write_same} and keep
blk_bio_{discard,write_same}_split

But for blkdev_issue_discard(), it's not enough if only make sure
bi_size not overflow, for example, discard 4G

4G bytes = 8388608 sectors
UINT_MAX = 8388607 sectors

So blkdev_issue_discard() will send 2 discard bios.
First bio: sector 0 .. 8388606
Second bio: sector 8388607 .. 8388607

In this case, the 2 discard tests in device-mapper-test-suite still
fail, probably because the second bio start sector is not aligned with
discard_granularity.

So I have to take into account discard_granularity(assume 32 sectors),
then blkdev_issue_discard() will send 2 discard bios, as

First bio: sector 0 .. 8388575
Second bio: sector 8388576 .. 8388607

In this case, both discard tests passed.

- Solution 2

special case discard/write_same bios(You said you hate it).

That is to keep splits in blkdev_issue_{discard,write_same} and remove
blk_bio_{discard,write_same}_split

I think this is more clean way because blkdev_issue_{discard,write_same}
already make sure we don't overflow bi_size.

And blk_bio_{discard,write_same}_split are actually duplicated with the
splits in blkdev_issue_{discard,write_same}. It's OK to remove it.