Re: [PATCH V10 10/19] block: loop: pass multi-page bvec to iov_iter

Ming Lei
2018-11-19T08:26:19Z

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 04:40:22PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 04:52:57PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > iov_iter is implemented with bvec itererator, so it is safe to pass
> > multipage bvec to it, and this way is much more efficient than
> > passing one page in each bvec.
> >
> > Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
> > Cc: dm-devel@redhat.com
> > Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> > Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>
> > Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org
> > Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
> > Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> > Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@huawei.com>
> > Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> > Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
> > Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
> > Cc: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: Boaz Harrosh <ooo@electrozaur.com>
> > Cc: Bob Peterson <rpeterso@redhat.com>
> > Cc: cluster-devel@redhat.com
>
> Reviewed-by: Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>
>
> Comments below.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/block/loop.c | 23 ++++++++++++-----------
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
> > index bf6bc35aaf88..a3fd418ec637 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
> > @@ -515,16 +515,16 @@ static int lo_rw_aio(struct loop_device *lo, struct loop_cmd *cmd,
> > struct bio *bio = rq->bio;
> > struct file *file = lo->lo_backing_file;
> > unsigned int offset;
> > - int segments = 0;
> > + int nr_bvec = 0;
> > int ret;
> >
> > if (rq->bio != rq->biotail) {
> > - struct req_iterator iter;
> > + struct bvec_iter iter;
> > struct bio_vec tmp;
> >
> > __rq_for_each_bio(bio, rq)
> > - segments += bio_segments(bio);
> > - bvec = kmalloc_array(segments, sizeof(struct bio_vec),
> > + nr_bvec += bio_bvecs(bio);
> > + bvec = kmalloc_array(nr_bvec, sizeof(struct bio_vec),
> > GFP_NOIO);
> > if (!bvec)
> > return -EIO;
> > @@ -533,13 +533,14 @@ static int lo_rw_aio(struct loop_device *lo, struct loop_cmd *cmd,
> > /*
> > * The bios of the request may be started from the middle of
> > * the 'bvec' because of bio splitting, so we can't directly
> > - * copy bio->bi_iov_vec to new bvec. The rq_for_each_segment
> > + * copy bio->bi_iov_vec to new bvec. The bio_for_each_bvec
> > * API will take care of all details for us.
> > */
> > - rq_for_each_segment(tmp, rq, iter) {
> > - *bvec = tmp;
> > - bvec++;
> > - }
> > + __rq_for_each_bio(bio, rq)
> > + bio_for_each_bvec(tmp, bio, iter) {
> > + *bvec = tmp;
> > + bvec++;
> > + }
>
> Even if they're not strictly necessary, could you please include the
> curly braces for __rq_for_each_bio() here?

Sure, will do it.

>
> > bvec = cmd->bvec;
> > offset = 0;
> > } else {
> > @@ -550,11 +551,11 @@ static int lo_rw_aio(struct loop_device *lo, struct loop_cmd *cmd,
> > */
> > offset = bio->bi_iter.bi_bvec_done;
> > bvec = __bvec_iter_bvec(bio->bi_io_vec, bio->bi_iter);
> > - segments = bio_segments(bio);
> > + nr_bvec = bio_bvecs(bio);
>
> This scared me for a second, but it's fine to do here because we haven't
> actually enabled multipage bvecs yet, right?

Well, it is fine, all helpers supporting multi-page bvec actually works
well when it isn't enabled, cause single-page bvec is one special case in
which multi-page bevc helpers have to deal with.

Thanks,
Ming