[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120822211045.GN19212@google.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:10:45 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, vgoyal@...hat.com, mpatocka@...hat.com,
bharrosh@...asas.com, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>, Sage Weil <sage@...tank.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 13/13] block: Only clone bio vecs that are in use
Hello, Kent.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:04:10AM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> bcache creates large bios internally, and then splits them according to
> the device requirements before it sends them down. If a lower level
> device tries to clone the bio, and the original bio had more than
> BIO_MAX_PAGES, the clone will fail unecessarily.
>
> We can fix this by only cloning the bio vecs that are actually in use.
I'm pretty sure I sound like a broken record by now, but
* How was this tested?
* What are the implications and possible dangers?
> @@ -463,10 +468,10 @@ void __bio_clone(struct bio *bio, struct bio *bio_src)
> bio->bi_sector = bio_src->bi_sector;
> bio->bi_bdev = bio_src->bi_bdev;
> bio->bi_flags |= 1 << BIO_CLONED;
> + bio->bi_flags &= ~(1 << BIO_SEG_VALID);
For the n'th time, explain please.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists