[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACVXFVPrLGG9tsCwEWXzUhKG+KX=iTX_CEh+7ciMBf-8vyuHRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:09:55 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>,
Maxim Patlasov <mpatlasov@...allels.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] block: loop: support DIO & AIO
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + /* nomerge for loop request queue */
>> + WARN_ON(cmd->rq->bio != cmd->rq->biotail);
>> +
>> + bvec = __bvec_iter_bvec(bio->bi_io_vec, bio->bi_iter);
>> + iov_iter_bvec(&iter, ITER_BVEC | rw, bvec,
>> + bio_segments(bio), blk_rq_bytes(cmd->rq));
>> +
>> + cmd->iocb.ki_pos = pos;
>> + cmd->iocb.ki_filp = file;
>> + cmd->iocb.ki_complete = lo_rw_aio_complete;
>> + cmd->iocb.ki_flags = IOCB_DIRECT;
>> +
>> + if (rw == WRITE)
>> + ret = file->f_op->write_iter(&cmd->iocb, &iter);
>> + else
>> + ret = file->f_op->read_iter(&cmd->iocb, &iter);
>
> I think we really need a vfs_ wrapper here similar to what I did a while
> ago, e.g. vfs_iter_read/write_async.
For the general async interface, it is a bit complicated than sync interfaces:
- iocb need to be one parameter, because it often depends on callers, such
as loop can preallocate it
- direct I/O need to be another parameter(in loop we can use the same helper
to handle sync request)
- bvec and the segment number are another two parameters
- not mention the common parameters(file, offset, pos, complete...)
And this kind of interfaces appeared in V1/V2, looks AIO guys
doesn't care that, then I moved the helper into loop, and it becomes
quite simple now. If we convert it to vfs_iter_read/write_async(), more
source code are introduced, I think.
So how about considering that if there are other uses in the future?
>
>> +static inline int lo_rw_simple(struct loop_device *lo,
>> + struct request *rq, loff_t pos, bool rw)
>> +{
>> + struct loop_cmd *cmd = blk_mq_rq_to_pdu(rq);
>> +
>> + if (cmd->use_aio)
>> + return lo_rw_aio(lo, cmd, pos, rw);
>> +
>> + if (rw == WRITE)
>> + return lo_write_simple(lo, rq, pos);
>> + else
>> + return lo_read_simple(lo, rq, pos);
>> +}
>
> And the io_submit style read/write also works for buffered I/O, so no
> need to keep lo_write_simple/lo_read_simple around.
That is really a good idea.
>
>> @@ -1569,7 +1634,8 @@ static void loop_handle_cmd(struct loop_cmd *cmd)
>> failed:
>> if (ret)
>> cmd->rq->errors = -EIO;
>> - blk_mq_complete_request(cmd->rq);
>> + if (!cmd->use_aio || ret)
>> + blk_mq_complete_request(cmd->rq);
>
> If you don't complete the request here setting req->error doesn't
> make sense. I'd suggest to move the blk_mq_complete_request for
The request with ->erros set is really completed here, and the curent
rule is very simple:
- complete sync/submit failed requests in loop_handle_cmd()
- complete async requests submitted successfully in its .complete
> everything but the trivial error case into the actual I/O handlers
> to clean this up a bit, too.
That need to copy the code for handling error in other handlers.
Thanks,
Ming
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists