linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v20 02/12] Add infrastructure for copy offload in block and request layer.

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]

Message-ID: <f54c770c-9a14-44d3-9949-37c4a08777e7@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 09:01:56 +0200
From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
To: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
 Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
 Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
 Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>, Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>,
 Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
 Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: martin.petersen@...cle.com, bvanassche@....org, david@...morbit.com,
 damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com, anuj20.g@...sung.com, joshi.k@...sung.com,
 nitheshshetty@...il.com, gost.dev@...sung.com, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 02/12] Add infrastructure for copy offload in block
 and request layer.

On 5/20/24 12:20, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
> We add two new opcode REQ_OP_COPY_DST, REQ_OP_COPY_SRC.
> Since copy is a composite operation involving src and dst sectors/lba,
> each needs to be represented by a separate bio to make it compatible
> with device mapper.
> We expect caller to take a plug and send bio with destination information,
> followed by bio with source information.
> Once the dst bio arrives we form a request and wait for source
> bio. Upon arrival of source bio we merge these two bio's and send
> corresponding request down to device driver.
> Merging non copy offload bio is avoided by checking for copy specific
> opcodes in merge function.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Anuj Gupta <anuj20.g@...sung.com>
> ---
>   block/blk-core.c          |  7 +++++++
>   block/blk-merge.c         | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   block/blk.h               | 16 +++++++++++++++
>   block/elevator.h          |  1 +
>   include/linux/bio.h       |  6 +-----
>   include/linux/blk_types.h | 10 ++++++++++
>   6 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
I am a bit unsure about leveraging 'merge' here. As Bart pointed out, 
this is arguably as mis-use of the 'merge' functionality as we don't
actually merge bios, but rather use the information from these bios to
form the actual request.
Wouldn't it be better to use bio_chain here, and send out the eventual
request from the end_io function of the bio chain?

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke                  Kernel Storage Architect
hare@...e.de                                +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Frankenstr. 146, 90461 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), GF: I. Totev, A. McDonald, W. Knoblich