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

[Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>]

On 08/08/2015 01:40 AM, Ming Lin wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 09:30 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> I'm for solution 3:
>>
>>  - keep blk_bio_{discard,write_same}_split, but ensure we never built
>>    a > 4GB bio in blkdev_issue_{discard,write_same}.
> 
> This has problem as I mentioned in solution 1.
> We need to also make sure max discard size is of proper granularity.
> See below example.
> 
>       4G: 8388608 sectors
> UINT_MAX: 8388607 sectors
> 
> dm-thinp block size = default discard granularity = 128 sectors
> 
> blkdev_issue_discard(sector=0, nr_sectors=8388608)
> 
> 1. Only ensure bi_size not overflow
> 
> It doesn't work.
> 
> [start_sector, end_sector]
> [0, 8388607]
>     [0, 8388606], then dm-thinp splits it to 2 bios
>         [0, 8388479]
>         [8388480, 8388606] ---> this has problem in process_discard_bio(),
>                                 because the discard size(7 sectors) covers less than a block(128 sectors)
>     [8388607, 8388607] ---> same problem 
> 
> 2. Ensure bi_size not overflow and max discard size is of proper granularity
> 
> It works.
> 
> [start_sector, end_sector]
> [0, 8388607]
>     [0, 8388479]
>     [8388480, 8388607]
> 
> 
> So how about below patch?
> 
> commit 1ca2ad977255efb3c339f4ca16fb798ed5ec54f7
> Author: Ming Lin <ming.l@ssi.samsung.com>
> Date:   Fri Aug 7 15:07:07 2015 -0700
> 
>     block: remove split code in blkdev_issue_{discard,write_same}
>     
>     The split code in blkdev_issue_{discard,write_same} can go away
>     now that any driver that cares does the split. We have to make
>     sure bio size doesn't overflow.
>     
>     For discard, we ensure max_discard_sectors is of the proper
>     granularity. So if discard size > 4G, blkdev_issue_discard() always
>     send multiple granularity requests to lower level, except that the
>     last one may be not multiple granularity.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Ming Lin <ming.l@ssi.samsung.com>
> ---
>  block/blk-lib.c | 37 +++++++++----------------------------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/blk-lib.c b/block/blk-lib.c
> index 7688ee3..e178a07 100644
> --- a/block/blk-lib.c
> +++ b/block/blk-lib.c
> @@ -44,7 +44,6 @@ int blkdev_issue_discard(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
>  	struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(bdev);
>  	int type = REQ_WRITE | REQ_DISCARD;
>  	unsigned int max_discard_sectors, granularity;
> -	int alignment;
>  	struct bio_batch bb;
>  	struct bio *bio;
>  	int ret = 0;
> @@ -58,18 +57,15 @@ int blkdev_issue_discard(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
>  
>  	/* Zero-sector (unknown) and one-sector granularities are the same.  */
>  	granularity = max(q->limits.discard_granularity >> 9, 1U);
> -	alignment = (bdev_discard_alignment(bdev) >> 9) % granularity;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * Ensure that max_discard_sectors is of the proper
> -	 * granularity, so that requests stay aligned after a split.
> -	 */
> -	max_discard_sectors = min(q->limits.max_discard_sectors, UINT_MAX >> 9);
> +	 * Ensure that max_discard_sectors doesn't overflow bi_size and is of
> +	 * the proper granularity. So if discard size > 4G, blkdev_issue_discard()
> +	 * always split and send multiple granularity requests to lower level,
> +	 * except that the last one may be not multiple granularity.
> +         */
> +	max_discard_sectors = UINT_MAX >> 9;
>  	max_discard_sectors -= max_discard_sectors % granularity;
> -	if (unlikely(!max_discard_sectors)) {
> -		/* Avoid infinite loop below. Being cautious never hurts. */
> -		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> -	}
>  
>  	if (flags & BLKDEV_DISCARD_SECURE) {
>  		if (!blk_queue_secdiscard(q))
> @@ -84,7 +80,7 @@ int blkdev_issue_discard(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
>  	blk_start_plug(&plug);
>  	while (nr_sects) {
>  		unsigned int req_sects;
> -		sector_t end_sect, tmp;
> +		sector_t end_sect;
>  
>  		bio = bio_alloc(gfp_mask, 1);
>  		if (!bio) {
> @@ -93,20 +89,7 @@ int blkdev_issue_discard(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
>  		}
>  
>  		req_sects = min_t(sector_t, nr_sects, max_discard_sectors);
> -
> -		/*
> -		 * If splitting a request, and the next starting sector would be
> -		 * misaligned, stop the discard at the previous aligned sector.
> -		 */
>  		end_sect = sector + req_sects;
> -		tmp = end_sect;
> -		if (req_sects < nr_sects &&
> -		    sector_div(tmp, granularity) != alignment) {
> -			end_sect = end_sect - alignment;
> -			sector_div(end_sect, granularity);
> -			end_sect = end_sect * granularity + alignment;
> -			req_sects = end_sect - sector;
> -		}
>  
>  		bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = sector;
>  		bio->bi_end_io = bio_batch_end_io;
> @@ -166,10 +149,8 @@ int blkdev_issue_write_same(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
>  	if (!q)
>  		return -ENXIO;
>  
> -	max_write_same_sectors = q->limits.max_write_same_sectors;
> -
> -	if (max_write_same_sectors == 0)
> -		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +	/* Ensure that max_write_same_sectors doesn't overflow bi_size */
> +	max_write_same_sectors = UINT_MAX >> 9;
>  
>  	atomic_set(&bb.done, 1);
>  	bb.flags = 1 << BIO_UPTODATE;
> 
Wouldn't it be easier to move both max_write_same_sectors and
max_discard sectors to 64 bit (ie to type sector_t) and be done with the
overflow?
Seems to me this is far too much coding around self-imposed restrictions...

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		      zSeries & Storage
hare@suse.de			      +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)