lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 22 Nov 2018 18:32:09 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <>,,,,
        Theodore Ts'o <>, Omar Sandoval <>,
        Sagi Grimberg <>,
        Dave Chinner <>,
        Kent Overstreet <>,
        Mike Snitzer <>,,
        Alexander Viro <>,, Shaohua Li <>,, David Sterba <>,,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <>,, Gao Xiang <>,, Coly Li <>,, Boaz Harrosh <>,
        Bob Peterson <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH V11 14/19] block: handle non-cluster bio out of

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:04:28AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 05:33:00PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > However, using virt boundary limit on non-cluster seems over-kill,
> > because the bio will be over-split(each small bvec may be split as one bio)
> > if it includes lots of small segment.
> The combination of the virt boundary of PAGE_SIZE - 1 and a
> max_segment_size of PAGE_SIZE will only split if the to me merged
> segment is in a different page than the previous one, which is exactly
> what we need here.  Multiple small bvec inside the same page (e.g.
> 512 byte buffer_heads) will still be merged.
> > What we want to do is just to avoid to merge bvecs to segment, which
> > should have been done by NO_SG_MERGE simply. However, after multi-page
> > is enabled, two adjacent bvecs won't be merged any more, I just forget
> > to remove the bvec merge code in V11.
> > 
> > So seems we can simply avoid to use virt boundary limit for non-cluster
> > after multipage bvec is enabled?
> No, we can't just remove it.  As explained in the patch there is one very
> visible difference of setting the flag amd that is no segment will span a
> page boundary, and at least the iSCSI code seems to rely on that.

IMO, we should use queue_segment_boundary() to enhance the rule during splitting
segment after multi-page bvec is enabled.

Seems we miss the segment boundary limit in bvec_split_segs().


Powered by blists - more mailing lists