Message ID | 20190329070803.10958-1-ming.lei@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | block: enable multi-page bvec for passthrough IO | expand |
On 3/29/19 1:07 AM, Ming Lei wrote: > Hi, > > Now the whole IO stack is capable of handling multi-page bvec, and it has > been enabled in the normal FS IO path. However, it isn't done for > passthrough IO. > > Without enabling multi-bvec for passthough IO, we won't go ahead for > optimizing related IO paths, such as bvec merging, bio_add_pc_page > simplification. > > This patch enables multi-page bvec for passthrough IO. Turns out > bio_add_pc_page() is simpliefied a lot, especially the physical segment > number of passthrough bio is always same with bio.bi_vcnt. Also the > bvec merging inside bio is killed. > > blktests(block/029) is added for covering passthough IO path, and this > patchset does pass the new block/029 test. > > V3: > - fix build warning on patch 1 and 7, only the two patches are > changed Please just send me an incremental fix for those two patches, v2 has been in my tree for a while now. I can rebase it since I haven't pushed out, but doing so incrementally is a lot more convenient than replacing the entire series.
On 3/29/19 8:20 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 3/29/19 1:07 AM, Ming Lei wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Now the whole IO stack is capable of handling multi-page bvec, and it has >> been enabled in the normal FS IO path. However, it isn't done for >> passthrough IO. >> >> Without enabling multi-bvec for passthough IO, we won't go ahead for >> optimizing related IO paths, such as bvec merging, bio_add_pc_page >> simplification. >> >> This patch enables multi-page bvec for passthrough IO. Turns out >> bio_add_pc_page() is simpliefied a lot, especially the physical segment >> number of passthrough bio is always same with bio.bi_vcnt. Also the >> bvec merging inside bio is killed. >> >> blktests(block/029) is added for covering passthough IO path, and this >> patchset does pass the new block/029 test. >> >> V3: >> - fix build warning on patch 1 and 7, only the two patches are >> changed > > Please just send me an incremental fix for those two patches, v2 has > been in my tree for a while now. I can rebase it since I haven't pushed > out, but doing so incrementally is a lot more convenient than replacing > the entire series. Actually, I can just replace those two, that's easy enough. Done.