linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] block: fix bio merge checks when virt

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:	Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:20:28 +0100
From:	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To:	Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
Cc:	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	Sagi Grimberg <sagig@...lanox.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
	Cathy Avery <cavery@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] block: fix bio merge checks when virt_boundary is set

Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com> writes:

> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 05:26:28PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com> writes:
>> > We do have the above merge in bio_add_page(), so the two bios in
>> > your above example shouldn't have been observed if the two buffers
>> > are added to bio via the bio_add_page().
>> >
>> > If you see short bios in above example, maybe you need to check ntfs code:
>> >
>> > - if bio_add_page() is used to add buffer
>> > - if using one standalone bio to transfer each 512byte, even they
>> > are in same page and the sector is continuous
>> 
>> I'm not using ntfs, mkfs.ntfs is a userspace application which shows the
>> regression when virt_boundary is in place. I should have avoided
>> mentioning bio_add_pc_page() here as it is unrelated to the issue.
>> 
>> In particular, I'm concearned about the following call sites:
>> blk_bio_segment_split()
>> ll_back_merge_fn()
>> ll_front_merge_fn()
>
> I don't think blk_bio_segment_split would have seen such a bio vector
> if it pages were added with bio_add_page. Those should already have
> been combined. In any case, I think you can get what you're after just
> by moving the gap check after BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGABLE. Does the following
> look ok to you?
>

Thanks, it does.

Just tested against 4.5, the test was:

# time mkfs.ntfs -s 512 -Q /dev/sdc1

The results are:

non-patched kernel:
real 0m35.552s
user 0m0.006s
sys 0m28.316s

my patch:
real 0m6.277s
user 0m0.010s
sys 0m5.870s

your patch:
real 0m4.247s
user 0m0.005s
sys 0m4.136s

Will you send it or would you like me to do that with your Suggested-by?

(a nitpick below)

> ---
> diff --git a/block/blk-merge.c b/block/blk-merge.c
> index 2613531..4aa8e44 100644
> --- a/block/blk-merge.c
> +++ b/block/blk-merge.c
> @@ -96,13 +96,6 @@ static struct bio *blk_bio_segment_split(struct request_queue *q,
>  	const unsigned max_sectors = get_max_io_size(q, bio);
>
>  	bio_for_each_segment(bv, bio, iter) {
> -		/*
> -		 * If the queue doesn't support SG gaps and adding this
> -		 * offset would create a gap, disallow it.
> -		 */
> -		if (bvprvp && bvec_gap_to_prev(q, bvprvp, bv.bv_offset))
> -			goto split;
> -
>  		if (sectors + (bv.bv_len >> 9) > max_sectors) {
>  			/*
>  			 * Consider this a new segment if we're splitting in
> @@ -139,6 +132,13 @@ new_segment:
>  		if (nsegs == queue_max_segments(q))
>  			goto split;
>
> +		/*
> +		 * If the queue doesn't support SG gaps and adding this
> +		 * offset would create a gap, disallow it.
> +		 */
> +		if (bvprvp && bvec_gap_to_prev(q, bvprvp, bv.bv_offset))
> +			goto split;
> +
>  		nsegs++;
>  		bvprv = bv;
>  		bvprvp = &bvprv;
> diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> index 413c84f..69cffbe 100644
> --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
> +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> @@ -1400,7 +1400,8 @@ static inline bool bio_will_gap(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *prev,
>  		bio_get_last_bvec(prev, &pb);
>  		bio_get_first_bvec(next, &nb);
>
> -		return __bvec_gap_to_prev(q, &pb, nb.bv_offset);
> +		if (!BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE(&pb, &nb))
> +			return __bvec_gap_to_prev(q, &pb, nb.bv_offset);
>  	}

Any reason to put this check here and not move to __bvec_gap_to_prev()?
I find it misleading that __bvec_gap_to_prev() reports a gap when offset
!= 0 not checking BIOVEC_PHYS_MERGEABLE().

>
>  	return false;
> --

-- 
  Vitaly