[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2 of 3] block: Block layer data integrity support
On Tue, Jun 17 2008, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >>>>> "Jens" == Jens Axboe <> writes:
> Jens,
> I've fixed pretty much everything you pointed out. So unless
> otherwise noted it's an ACK.

Great, I'll hold off including the other two patches until a new posting
of the main patch.

> > + /* Allocate kernel buffer for protection data */
> > + len = sectors * blk_integrity_tuple_size(bi);
> > + buf = kmalloc(len, GFP_NOIO | q->bounce_gfp);
> > + if (unlikely(buf == NULL)) {
> > + printk(KERN_ERR "could not allocate integrity buffer\n");
> > + return -EIO;
> > + }
> Jens> Is that good enough, don't you want to handle this error
> Jens> condition? IOW, doesn't this allocation want mempool backing or
> Jens> similar?
> When I originally wrote this I had a couple of mempools that worked
> well with ext2/3 because they blow everything into 4KB (or 1KB)
> atoms. Due to the problems with ext2/3 modifying pages in flight I've
> mostly used XFS and btrfs for development. And they both generate a
> much more varied set of bio sizes that in turn will require a whole
> whack of different sized integrity pools.
> I did gather quite a bit of statistics from runs with different
> filesystems a few months ago. kmalloc provided a good set of pre-made
> sizes and I felt it was an overkill to replicate that. But you are
> right that we should probably be more conservative in terms of failing
> the I/O. I'll look at it again.

You are right, a strict mempool solution will not be feasible (or at
least it will be very wasteful). I guess a temporary solution would be
to add __GFP_NOFAIL for this allocation.

> > struct bio_pair {
> > struct bio bio1, bio2;
> > struct bio_vec bv1, bv2;
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INTEGRITY)
> > + struct bip bip1, bip2;
> > + struct bio_vec iv1, iv2;
> > +#endif
> > atomic_t cnt;
> > int error;
> > };
> Jens> That's somewhat of a shame, it makes bio_pair a LOT bigger. bio
> Jens> grows a pointer if CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INTEGRITY, that we can live
> Jens> with. In reality, very few people will use this stuff so adding
> Jens> a sizable chunk of data to struct bio_pair is somewhat of a
> Jens> bother.
> Yeah, well. Wasn't sure what else to do. But the pool is tiny (2
> entries by default) and only pktdvd and raid 0/10 actually use
> bio_pairs. I figured if you had CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INTEGRITY on you'd
> probably want to use integrity it on your MD disks anyway. And on
> your desktop box with pktdvd integrity wasn't likely to be compiled
> in.

I'm not sure there IS a better solution, just noting that it's a bit of
a shame to grow it that much...

> Dynamic allocation would defeat the purpose of the pool. But I guess
> I could make another dedicated bio_integrity_pair pool and wire the
> integrity portion into bio_pair using pointers. What do you think?

Doing a quick check, bio_pair is 248 bytes on x86-64 currently. struct
bio is around 80 bytes or so, bio_vec is 16 bytes. So that's about 200
extra bytes, making the bio_pair around 440 bytes or so - indeed a
sizable increase in size. The bio_pair is only used for rare splitting,
so it's not THAT big of an issue.

So lets just keep it as-is, I think.

Jens Axboe

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-17 09:23    [W:0.062 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site