From: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@redhat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Ye Bin <yebin10@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: check bio alignment in blk_mq_submit_bio
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 13:22:27 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <355cc36f-e771-4f00-bfb0-0095674d5d49@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7ed12f7e-f59a-4f6f-975b-ce7bb21652de@kernel.org>
On 6/19/24 13:14, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 6/19/24 12:34, Ming Lei wrote:
>> IO logical block size is one fundamental queue limit, and every IO has
>> to be aligned with logical block size because our bio split can't deal
>> with unaligned bio.
>>
>> The check has to be done with queue usage counter grabbed because device
>> reconfiguration may change logical block size, and we can prevent the
>> reconfiguration from happening by holding queue usage counter.
>>
>> logical_block_size stays in the 1st cache line of queue_limits, and this
>> cache line is always fetched in fast path via bio_may_exceed_limits(),
>> so IO perf won't be affected by this check.
>>
>> Cc: Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
>> Cc: Ye Bin <yebin10@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> block/blk-mq.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
>> index 3b4df8e5ac9e..7bb50b6b9567 100644
>> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
>> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
>> @@ -2914,6 +2914,21 @@ static void blk_mq_use_cached_rq(struct request *rq, struct blk_plug *plug,
>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rq->queuelist);
>> }
>>
>> +static bool bio_unaligned(const struct bio *bio,
>> + const struct request_queue *q)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int bs = queue_logical_block_size(q);
>> +
>> + if (bio->bi_iter.bi_size & (bs - 1))
>> + return true;
>> +
>> + if (bio->bi_iter.bi_size &&
>> + ((bio->bi_iter.bi_sector << SECTOR_SHIFT) & (bs - 1)))
>
> Hmmm... Some BIO operations have a 0 size but do specify a sector (e.g. zone
> management operations). So this seems incorrect to me...
I meant to say, why not checking the sector alignment for these BIOs as well ?
Something like:
static bool bio_unaligned(const struct bio *bio,
const struct request_queue *q)
{
unsigned int bs_mask = queue_logical_block_size(q) - 1;
return (bio->bi_iter.bi_size & bs_mask) ||
((bio->bi_iter.bi_sector << SECTOR_SHIFT) & bs_mask);
}
>
>> + return true;
>> +
>> + return false;
>> +}
>> +
>> /**
>> * blk_mq_submit_bio - Create and send a request to block device.
>> * @bio: Bio pointer.
>> @@ -2966,6 +2981,15 @@ void blk_mq_submit_bio(struct bio *bio)
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> + /*
>> + * Device reconfiguration may change logical block size, so alignment
>> + * check has to be done with queue usage counter held
>> + */
>> + if (unlikely(bio_unaligned(bio, q))) {
>> + bio_io_error(bio);
>> + goto queue_exit;
>> + }
>> +
>> if (unlikely(bio_may_exceed_limits(bio, &q->limits))) {
>> bio = __bio_split_to_limits(bio, &q->limits, &nr_segs);
>> if (!bio)
>
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-19 4:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-19 3:34 [PATCH] block: check bio alignment in blk_mq_submit_bio Ming Lei
2024-06-19 4:14 ` Damien Le Moal
2024-06-19 4:22 ` Damien Le Moal [this message]
2024-06-19 7:33 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-06-19 7:58 ` Ming Lei
2024-06-19 8:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-06-19 8:29 ` Ming Lei
2024-06-19 7:56 ` Ming Lei
2024-06-19 8:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-06-19 8:37 ` Ming Lei
2024-06-19 7:50 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-06-19 8:02 ` Ming Lei
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=355cc36f-e771-4f00-bfb0-0095674d5d49@kernel.org \
--to=dlemoal@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=yebin10@huawei.com \
--cc=yi.zhang@redhat.com \
/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