linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 01/11] block: make generic_make

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-cve-announce 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:	Tue, 04 Aug 2015 23:03:24 -0700
From:	Ming Lin <mlin@...nel.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
	Dongsu Park <dpark@...teo.net>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
	Lars Ellenberg <drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com>,
	drbd-user@...ts.linbit.com, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Geoff Levand <geoff@...radead.org>, Jim Paris <jim@...n.com>,
	Philip Kelleher <pjk1939@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
	Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
	Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
	Ming Lin <ming.l@....samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/11] block: make generic_make_request handle
 arbitrarily sized bios

On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 13:36 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 10:58:22PM -0700, Ming Lin wrote:
> > I think the important thing is the late splitting for regular bio.
> > For discard/write_same bio, how about just don't do late splitting?
> 
> I'd hate having to special case them even more.  Especially as the
> discard splitting is nasty and we really don't want to send giant
> discards by default anyway (see Jens' patches to limit discard size
> by default).
> 
> So I'd recommend to keep everything as-is, just make sure we don't
> overflow bi_size.

Did you mean to remove "PATCH 4 block: remove split code in
blkdev_issue_discard" or to keep it?

Which of below 2 solutions you prefer?

- Solution 1

remove splits in blkdev_issue_{discard,write_same} and keep
blk_bio_{discard,write_same}_split

But for blkdev_issue_discard(), it's not enough if only make sure
bi_size not overflow, for example, discard 4G

4G bytes = 8388608 sectors
UINT_MAX = 8388607 sectors

So blkdev_issue_discard() will send 2 discard bios.
First bio: sector 0 .. 8388606
Second bio: sector 8388607 .. 8388607

In this case, the 2 discard tests in device-mapper-test-suite still
fail, probably because the second bio start sector is not aligned with
discard_granularity.

So I have to take into account discard_granularity(assume 32 sectors),
then blkdev_issue_discard() will send 2 discard bios, as

First bio: sector 0 .. 8388575
Second bio: sector 8388576 .. 8388607

In this case, both discard tests passed.

- Solution 2

special case discard/write_same bios(You said you hate it).

That is to keep splits in blkdev_issue_{discard,write_same} and remove
blk_bio_{discard,write_same}_split

I think this is more clean way because blkdev_issue_{discard,write_same}
already make sure we don't overflow bi_size.

And blk_bio_{discard,write_same}_split are actually duplicated with the
splits in blkdev_issue_{discard,write_same}. It's OK to remove it.

--
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/