Re: [PATCH 025 of 35] Treat rq->hard_nr_sectors as setting an overriding limit in the size of the request

On Thursday August 2, [email protected] wrote:
> 
> This is pretty confusing.  In all other places, bi_size -> #sector
> conversion is done by rounding down but only in blk_rq_bio_prep() it's
> being rounded up.
> 
> Is my following reasoning correct?
> 
> It was okay till now because unaligned requests don't get merged and
> also haven't done partial completions (end_that_request_first with
> partial count)?  So till now, hard_nr_sectors and nr_sectors didn't
> really matter for unaligned requests but now it matters because it's
> considered while iterating over bvecs in rq.

Yes, that reasoning matches mine.

> 
> If so, I think the correct thing to do would be changing bio_sectors()
> to round up first or let block layer measure transfer in bytes not in
> sectors.  I don't think everyone would agree with the latter tho.  I
> (tentatively) think it would be better to represent length in bytes
> tho.  A lot of requests which aren't aligned to 512 bytes pass through
> the block layer and the mismatch can result in subtle bugs.

I suspect that having a byte count in 'struct request' would make
sense too.  However I would rather avoid making that change myself - I
think it would require reading and understanding a lot more code....

I cannot see anything that would go wrong with rounding up bio_sectors
unconditionally, so I think I will take that approach for this patch
series.

Thanks.

NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 025 of 35] Treat rq->hard_nr_sectors as setting an overriding limit in the size of the request
    • From: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 000 of 35] Refactor block layer to improve support for stacked devices.
    • From: NeilBrown <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 025 of 35] Treat rq->hard_nr_sectors as setting an overriding limit in the size of the request
    • From: NeilBrown <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 025 of 35] Treat rq->hard_nr_sectors as setting an overriding limit in the size of the request
    • From: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 026 of 35] Split any large bios that arrive at __make_request.
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON() on bitfield ops for all other archs
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 025 of 35] Treat rq->hard_nr_sectors as setting an overriding limit in the size of the request
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 025 of 35] Treat rq->hard_nr_sectors as setting an overriding limit in the size of the request
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]