From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shaohua Li Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/13] md: raid1: use bio_segments_all() Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 23:52:02 -0800 Message-ID: <20170302075202.ipnx64sodjzxisqs@kernel.org> References: <1488296503-4987-1-git-send-email-tom.leiming@gmail.com> <1488296503-4987-10-git-send-email-tom.leiming@gmail.com> <20170228234212.3wjwxsegg4v57nxu@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ming Lei Cc: Jens Axboe , "open list:SOFTWARE RAID (Multiple Disks) SUPPORT" , linux-block , Christoph Hellwig List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 10:34:25AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > Hi Shaohua, > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Shaohua Li wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:41:39PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > >> Use this helper, instead of direct access to .bi_vcnt. > > > > what We really need to do for the behind IO is: > > - allocate memory and copy bio data to the memory > > - let behind bio do IO against the memory > > > > The behind bio doesn't need to have the exactly same bio_vec setting. If we > > just track the new memory, we don't need use the bio_segments_all and access > > bio_vec too. > > But we need to figure out how many vecs(each vec store one page) to be > allocated for the cloned/behind bio, and that is the only value of > bio_segments_all() here. Or you have idea to avoid that? As I said, the behind bio doesn't need to have the exactly same bio_vec setting. We just allocate memory and copy original bio data to the memory, then do IO against the new memory. The behind bio segments == (bio->bi_iter.bi_size + PAGE_SIZE - 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT Thanks, Shaohua