On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Ming Lei [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Keith Busch [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:20:28PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:

quoted

Keith Busch [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

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.

Cool, thanks for confirming.

quoted

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

I'm not confident yet this doesn't break anything, particularly since
we moved the gap check after the length check. Just wanted to confirm
the concept addressed your concern, but still need to take a closer look
and test before submitting.

IMO, the change on blk_bio_segment_split() is correct, because actually it
is a sg gap and the check should have been done between segments
instead of bvecs. So it is reasonable to move the check just before populating
a new segment.

Thinking of the 1st part change further, looks it is just correct in concept,
but wrong from current implementation. Because of bios/reqs merge,
blk_rq_map_sg() may end one segment in any bvec in theroy, so I guess
that is why each non-1st bvec need the check to make sure no sg gap.
Looks a very crazy limit, :-)

But for the 2nd change in bio_will_gap(), which should fix Vitaly's problem, I
am still not sure if it is completely correct. bio_will_gap() is used
to check if two
bios may be merged. Suppose two bios are continues physically, the last bvec
in 1st bio and the first bvec in 2nd bio might not be in one same segment
because of segment size limit.

How about the attached patch?

The root cause might be from blkdev_writepage(), and I guess these small
bios are from there.

thanks,
Ming Lei

-- 
Ming Lei