From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>,
Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@openvz.org>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.20 1/4] block: add bio_rewind() API
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 08:49:24 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YruhlPDqZMorCFip@T590> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3ad782c3-4425-9ae6-e61b-9f62f76ce9f4@kernel.dk>
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 12:13:06PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 6/27/22 10:20 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 03:36:22PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 04:14:58PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 10:12:52PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >>>> Commit 7759eb23fd98 ("block: remove bio_rewind_iter()") removes
> >>>> the similar API because the following reasons:
> >>>>
> >>>> ```
> >>>> It is pointed that bio_rewind_iter() is one very bad API[1]:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) bio size may not be restored after rewinding
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) it causes some bogus change, such as 5151842b9d8732 (block: reset
> >>>> bi_iter.bi_done after splitting bio)
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) rewinding really makes things complicated wrt. bio splitting
> >>>>
> >>>> 4) unnecessary updating of .bi_done in fast path
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://marc.info/?t=153549924200005&r=1&w=2
> >>>>
> >>>> So this patch takes Kent's suggestion to restore one bio into its original
> >>>> state via saving bio iterator(struct bvec_iter) in bio_integrity_prep(),
> >>>> given now bio_rewind_iter() is only used by bio integrity code.
> >>>> ```
> >>>>
> >>>> However, it isn't easy to restore bio by saving 32 bytes bio->bi_iter, and saving
> >>>> it only can't restore crypto and integrity info.
> >>>>
> >>>> Add bio_rewind() back for some use cases which may not be same with
> >>>> previous generic case:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) most of bio has fixed end sector since bio split is done from front of the bio,
> >>>> if driver just records how many sectors between current bio's start sector and
> >>>> the bio's end sector, the original position can be restored
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) if one bio's end sector won't change, usually bio_trim() isn't called, user can
> >>>> restore original position by storing sectors from current ->bi_iter.bi_sector to
> >>>> bio's end sector; together by saving bio size, 8 bytes can restore to
> >>>> original bio.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) dm's requeue use case: when BLK_STS_DM_REQUEUE happens, dm core needs to
> >>>> restore to the original bio which represents current dm io to be requeued.
> >>>> By storing sectors to the bio's end sector and dm io's size,
> >>>> bio_rewind() can restore such original bio, then dm core code needn't to
> >>>> allocate one bio beforehand just for handling BLK_STS_DM_REQUEUE which
> >>>> is actually one unusual event.
> >>>>
> >>>> 4) Not like original rewind API, this one needn't to add .bi_done, and no any
> >>>> effect on fast path
> >>>
> >>> It seems like perhaps the real issue here is that we need a real bio_iter,
> >>> separate from bvec_iter, that also encapsulates iterating over integrity &
> >>> fscrypt.
> >>
> >> Not mention bio_iter, bvec_iter has been 32 bytes, which is too big to
> >> hold in per-io data structure. With this patch, 8bytes is enough
> >> to rewind one bio if the end sector is fixed.
> >
> > Hold on though, does that check out? Why is that too big for per IO data
> > structures?
> >
> > By definition these structures are only for IOs in flight, and we don't _want_
> > there to ever be very many of these or we're going to run into latency issues
> > due to queue depth.
>
> It's much less about using whatever amount of memory for inflight IO,
> and much more about not bloating fast path structures (of which the bio
> is certainly one). All of this gunk has to be initialized for each IO,
> and that's the real issue.
Can't agree more, especially the initialization is just for the unusual
DM_REQUEUE event(bio rewind is needed).
Thanks,
Ming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-29 0:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-24 14:12 [PATCH 5.20 0/4] block/dm: add bio_rewind for improving dm requeue Ming Lei
2022-06-24 14:12 ` [PATCH 5.20 1/4] block: add bio_rewind() API Ming Lei
2022-06-26 20:14 ` Kent Overstreet
2022-06-27 7:36 ` Ming Lei
2022-06-28 4:20 ` Kent Overstreet
2022-06-28 7:42 ` Ming Lei
2022-06-28 16:16 ` Kent Overstreet
2022-06-28 18:13 ` Jens Axboe
2022-06-28 18:32 ` Kent Overstreet
2022-06-29 17:16 ` Jens Axboe
2022-06-29 18:40 ` Kent Overstreet
2022-06-29 18:51 ` Bart Van Assche
2022-06-29 19:05 ` Kent Overstreet
2022-06-29 19:37 ` Bart Van Assche
2022-06-29 19:50 ` Kent Overstreet
2022-06-29 19:59 ` Kent Overstreet
2022-06-29 19:00 ` Jens Axboe
2022-06-29 19:26 ` Kent Overstreet
2022-06-29 20:51 ` Jens Axboe
2022-06-29 0:49 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2022-06-28 4:26 ` Kent Overstreet
2022-06-28 7:49 ` Ming Lei
2022-06-28 16:36 ` Kent Overstreet
2022-06-28 17:41 ` Mike Snitzer
2022-06-28 17:52 ` Kent Overstreet
2022-06-29 6:07 ` Mike Snitzer
2022-06-29 18:11 ` Kent Overstreet
2022-06-30 0:47 ` Ming Lei
2022-06-30 0:58 ` Kent Overstreet
2022-06-30 1:14 ` Kent Overstreet
2022-07-01 3:58 ` Ming Lei
2022-07-01 21:09 ` Kent Overstreet
2022-06-29 1:02 ` Ming Lei
2022-06-26 21:37 ` [dm-devel] " Eric Biggers
2022-06-27 7:37 ` Ming Lei
2022-06-24 14:12 ` [PATCH 5.20 2/4] dm: add new helper for handling dm_io requeue Ming Lei
2022-06-24 14:12 ` [PATCH 5.20 3/4] dm: improve handling for DM_REQUEUE and AGAIN Ming Lei
2022-06-24 14:12 ` [PATCH 5.20 4/4] dm: add two stage requeue 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=YruhlPDqZMorCFip@T590 \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=dmonakhov@openvz.org \
--cc=ebiggers@google.com \
--cc=kent.overstreet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=snitzer@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