| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:48:08 +0000
From: Chaitanya Kulkarni <Chaitanya.Kulkarni@....com>
To: "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"bob.liu@...cle.com" <bob.liu@...cle.com>,
"agk@...hat.com" <agk@...hat.com>,
"snitzer@...hat.com" <snitzer@...hat.com>,
"dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
"song@...nel.org" <song@...nel.org>,
"tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>,
"adilger.kernel@...ger.ca" <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
"ming.lei@...hat.com" <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
"osandov@...com" <osandov@...com>,
"jthumshirn@...e.de" <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
"minwoo.im.dev@...il.com" <minwoo.im.dev@...il.com>,
Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
"andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com"
<andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
"hare@...e.com" <hare@...e.com>, "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
Ajay Joshi <Ajay.Joshi@....com>,
"sagi@...mberg.me" <sagi@...mberg.me>,
"dsterba@...e.com" <dsterba@...e.com>,
"bvanassche@....org" <bvanassche@....org>,
"dhowells@...hat.com" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"asml.silence@...il.com" <asml.silence@...il.com>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/6] block: Introduce REQ_ALLOCATE flag for
REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES
On 03/26/2020 07:46 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:34:42AM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>> I just worry about the proliferation of identical merging and
>>> splitting code throughout the block stack as we add additional
>>> single-range, no payload operations (Verify, etc.). I prefer to
>>> enforce the semantics in the LLD and not in the plumbing. But I
>>> won't object to a separate REQ_OP_ALLOCATE if you find the
>>> resulting code duplication acceptable.
> I find it acceptable for now. And I think we should find some way
> (e.g. by being table driven) to share code between differnet
> opcodes.
>
With reference to Martin's comment (verify etc) there is a significant
advantage when using payloadless bio to offload the functionality
to the directly attached device and over the fabrics when dealing
with larger disks.
How about we create a helper which is independent of the operations
can accept req_op and issues the payloadless bios. Something like
following totally untested :-
diff --git a/block/blk-lib.c b/block/blk-lib.c
index cf9e75a730b4..d3fccd3211cc 100644
--- a/block/blk-lib.c
+++ b/block/blk-lib.c
@@ -209,6 +209,33 @@ int blkdev_issue_write_same(struct block_device
*bdev, sector_t sector,
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(blkdev_issue_write_same);
+static void __blkdev_issue_payloadless(struct block_device *bdev,
unsigned op,
+ sector_t sector, sector_t nr_sects, gfp_t gfp_mask,
+ struct bio **biop, unsigned bio_opf, unsigned int
max_sectors)
+{
+ struct bio *bio = *biop;
+
+ while (nr_sects) {
+ bio = blk_next_bio(bio, 0, gfp_mask);
+ bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = sector;
+ bio_set_dev(bio, bdev);
+ bio->bi_opf = op;
+ bio->bi_opf |= bio_opf;
+
+ if (nr_sects > max_sectors) {
+ bio->bi_iter.bi_size = max_sectors << 9;
+ nr_sects -= max_sectors;
+ sector += max_sectors;
+ } else {
+ bio->bi_iter.bi_size = nr_sects << 9;
+ nr_sects = 0;
+ }
+ cond_resched();
+ }
+
+ *biop = bio;
+}
+
static int __blkdev_issue_write_zeroes(struct block_device *bdev,
sector_t sector, sector_t nr_sects, gfp_t gfp_mask,
struct bio **biop, unsigned flags)
@@ -216,6 +243,7 @@ static int __blkdev_issue_write_zeroes(struct
block_device *bdev,
struct bio *bio = *biop;
unsigned int max_write_zeroes_sectors;
struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(bdev);
+ unsigned int unmap = (flags & BLKDEV_ZERO_NOUNMAP) ? REQ_NOUNMAP
: 0;
if (!q)
return -ENXIO;
@@ -229,24 +257,8 @@ static int __blkdev_issue_write_zeroes(struct
block_device *bdev,
if (max_write_zeroes_sectors == 0)
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
- while (nr_sects) {
- bio = blk_next_bio(bio, 0, gfp_mask);
- bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = sector;
- bio_set_dev(bio, bdev);
- bio->bi_opf = REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES;
- if (flags & BLKDEV_ZERO_NOUNMAP)
- bio->bi_opf |= REQ_NOUNMAP;
-
- if (nr_sects > max_write_zeroes_sectors) {
- bio->bi_iter.bi_size = max_write_zeroes_sectors
<< 9;
- nr_sects -= max_write_zeroes_sectors;
- sector += max_write_zeroes_sectors;
- } else {
- bio->bi_iter.bi_size = nr_sects << 9;
- nr_sects = 0;
- }
- cond_resched();
- }
+ __blkdev_issue_payloadless(bdev, REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES, sector,
nr_sects,
+ gfp_mask, biop, unmap, max_write_zeroes_sectors);
*biop = bio;
return 0;
I'll be happy to send out a well tested patch based on the above
suggestion or any feedback I get and re-spin this series or OP can
re-spin this series whatever works.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists