linux-scsi.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc: jaxboe@fusionio.com, James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com,
	snitzer@redhat.com, michaelc@cs.wisc.edu,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] block: Implement support for WRITE SAME
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 17:08:23 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120302220823.GI26315@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1330658571-12958-3-git-send-email-martin.petersen@oracle.com>

On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 10:22:46PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:

[..]
>  void submit_bio(int rw, struct bio *bio)
>  {
> -	int count = bio_sectors(bio);
> -
>  	bio->bi_rw |= rw;
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -1699,6 +1702,13 @@ void submit_bio(int rw, struct bio *bio)
>  	 * go through the normal accounting stuff before submission.
>  	 */
>  	if (bio_has_data(bio)) {
> +		unsigned int count;
> +
> +		if (unlikely(rw & REQ_WRITE_SAME))
> +			count = bdev_logical_block_size(bio->bi_bdev) >> 9;
> +		else
> +			count = bio_sectors(bio);
> +

I am wondering how REQ_WRITE_SAME accounting is handled on completion
(blk_account_io_completion).

Looks like number of bytes completed we calculate from bio_cur_bytes().

static inline unsigned int bio_cur_bytes(struct bio *bio)
{
        if (bio->bi_vcnt)
                return bio_iovec(bio)->bv_len;
        else /* dataless requests such as discard */
                return bio->bi_size;
}

Interestingly it looks like this will return 1 logical block size for
WRITE_SAME but whole bio->bi_size in case of DISCARD.

Thinking loud. Will it logically make sense to account for whole BIO
(all the sectors and not just 1). Target device did the actual work of
writing the sector. Just that we reduced the data transfer overhead.  

Have I read the code right. IIUC, number of sectors discarded are being
counted towards number of sectors written on partition. Is that the
right thing to do. If yes, then treating the WRITE_SAME in a similar
way will make sense.

I thought it will make more sense to count WRITE_SAME towards number
of sectors written and not DISCARDS. Not sure why it make sense to
count discard sectors towards sectors written in disk/part stat.

Thanks
Vivek

  reply	other threads:[~2012-03-02 22:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-03-02  3:22 Write same support v3 Martin K. Petersen
2012-03-02  3:22 ` [PATCH 1/7] block: Clean up merge logic Martin K. Petersen
2012-03-02 20:21   ` Vivek Goyal
2012-03-06 17:42     ` Martin K. Petersen
2012-03-07 16:52       ` Vivek Goyal
2012-03-08  4:41         ` Martin K. Petersen
2012-03-02 21:36   ` Vivek Goyal
2012-03-06 17:43     ` Martin K. Petersen
2012-03-02  3:22 ` [PATCH 2/7] block: Implement support for WRITE SAME Martin K. Petersen
2012-03-02 22:08   ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2012-03-06 17:54     ` Martin K. Petersen
2012-03-07 17:03       ` DISCARD/WRITE_SAME request accounting (Was: Re: [PATCH 2/7] block: Implement support for WRITE SAME) Vivek Goyal
2012-03-08 10:48         ` Lukas Czerner
2012-03-09 16:54           ` Vivek Goyal
2012-03-02  3:22 ` [PATCH 3/7] block: Make blkdev_issue_zeroout use WRITE SAME Martin K. Petersen
2012-03-09 18:05   ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-03-13  2:30     ` Martin K. Petersen
2012-03-02  3:22 ` [PATCH 4/7] block: ioctl to zero block ranges Martin K. Petersen
2012-03-02  3:22 ` [PATCH 5/7] scsi: Add a report opcode helper Martin K. Petersen
2012-03-02  4:08   ` Jeff Garzik
2012-03-02  3:22 ` [PATCH 6/7] sd: Implement support for WRITE SAME Martin K. Petersen
2012-03-05 15:07   ` Vivek Goyal
2012-03-06 17:58     ` Martin K. Petersen
2012-03-02  3:22 ` [PATCH 7/7] sd: Use sd_ prefix for flush and discard functions Martin K. Petersen
2012-03-02 14:24 ` [PATCH] dm kcopyd: add WRITE SAME support to dm_kcopyd_zero Mike Snitzer
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-03-16 18:43 Write same support v4 Martin K. Petersen
2012-03-16 18:43 ` [PATCH 2/7] block: Implement support for WRITE SAME Martin K. Petersen

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=20120302220823.GI26315@redhat.com \
    --to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
    --cc=jaxboe@fusionio.com \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=michaelc@cs.wisc.edu \
    --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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).