Thread (23 messages) 23 messages, 5 authors, 2016-06-10

Re: [PATCH v6 0/8] block: prepare for multipage bvecs

From: Ming Lei <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-02 02:13:22
Also in: linux-xfs, lkml

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Mike Snitzer [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 01 2016 at  9:44am -0400,
Christoph Hellwig [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 08:38:41PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
quoted
quoted
be dm-crypt.c.  Maybe you've identified some indirect use of
BIO_MAX_SIZE?
I mean the recently introduced BIO_MAX_SIZE in -next tree:

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/drivers/md/dm-crypt.c?id=4ed89c97b0706477b822ea2182827640c0cec486
The crazy bcache bios striking back once again.  I really think it's
harmful having a _MAX value and then having a minor driver
reinterpreting it and sending larger ones.  Until we can lift the
maximum limit in general nad have common code exercise it we really need
to stop bcache from sending these instead of littering the tree with
workarounds.
So should I not push this type of fix to Linus now?  I was going to send
the above commit and this one to him this week:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/commit/?h=dm-4.7&id=57b3001b240629ecc5266d28c845e23ca5f11719
I don't suggest this kind of fix.

That fix should be in bcache or blk-core instead of other places.
Last time, I sent out the following fix([PATCH v1] block: make sure big bio is
splitted into at most 256 bvecs):

     https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/4/5/1046

But forget to clear the flag of REQ_NOMERGE for this case.

If Jens doesn't mind doing such thing in block-core, I can post v2
for this issue.
Instead, should bcache be made to not do what it is doing?
It depends on if bcache is the only user of this kind of usage.
In theory, any driver can use external bvec table.

Thanks,
Ming
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help