lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] block: fix leaks associated with discard request payload
On Wed, Jun 30 2010 at  6:57am -0400,
Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@panasas.com> wrote:

> On 06/30/2010 01:41 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 01:25:01PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> >> OK, Thanks, I see. Is it one of these operations, (like we have in OSD) where
> >> the CDB information spills into the payload? like the scatter-gather and extent
> >> lists and such.
> >
> > For UNMAP the payload is a list of block number / length pairs, while
> > the CDB itself doesn't contain any information like that. It's a rather
> > awkward command.
> >
>
> How big can that be? could we, maybe, use the sense_buffer, properly allocated
> already?
>
> >> Do we actually use a WRITE_SAME which is not zero? for what use?
> >
> > The kernel doesn't issue any WRITE SAME without the unmap bit set.
>
> So if the unmap bit is set then the page can just be zero, right?
>
> I still think a static zero-page is a worth while optimization. And
> block-drivers can take care with special needs with a private mem_pool
> or something. For the discard-type user and generic block layer the
> page is just an implementation specific residue, No?

Why should the block layer have any role in managing this page? Block
layer doesn't care about it, SCSI does.

Mike


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-30 14:21    [W:0.923 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site