Hello, Kent.

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 05:22:30PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> A bunch of what __blk_queue_bounce() was doing was problematic for the
> immutable bvec work; this cleans that up and the code is quite a bit
> smaller, too.
>
> The __bio_for_each_segment() in copy_to_high_bio_irq() was changed
> because that one's looping over the original bio, not the bounce bio -
> since the bounce code doesn't own that bio the __ version wasn't
> correct.

I do like the new implementation. I think the function is broken
before and after tho. Allocating from fs_bio_set from block layer is
never safe and nothing seems to prevent multiple allocators compete in
the bounce page mempool. This will need a separate bioset and the
multiple mempool allocation would have to be put inside a mutex.

Also, how was this tested?

Thanks.

--
tejun

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 05:22:30PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> A bunch of what __blk_queue_bounce() was doing was problematic for the
> immutable bvec work; this cleans that up and the code is quite a bit
> smaller, too.
>
> The __bio_for_each_segment() in copy_to_high_bio_irq() was changed
> because that one's looping over the original bio, not the bounce bio -
> since the bounce code doesn't own that bio the __ version wasn't
> correct.

Also, I can't understand the above at all. I can think why it
wouldn't be necessary but why is it wrong because bounce code doesn't
own it?

--
tejun

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel