Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934479Ab3CHRHN (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Mar 2013 12:07:13 -0500 Received: from smtp.eu.citrix.com ([46.33.159.39]:14277 "EHLO SMTP.EU.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757848Ab3CHRHL (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Mar 2013 12:07:11 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,809,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="2330348" Message-ID: <513A1ABC.1040906@citrix.com> Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 18:07:08 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=E9?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk CC: "james.harper@bendigoit.com.au" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 12/12] xen-block: implement indirect descriptors References: <1362047335-26402-1-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com> <1362047335-26402-13-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com> <20130304204154.GL15386@phenom.dumpdata.com> <5136266D.8050707@citrix.com> <20130305214641.GD8235@phenom.dumpdata.com> In-Reply-To: <20130305214641.GD8235@phenom.dumpdata.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3379 Lines: 79 On 05/03/13 22:46, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 06:07:57PM +0100, Roger Pau Monn? wrote: >> On 04/03/13 21:41, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:28:55AM +0100, Roger Pau Monne wrote: >>>> Indirect descriptors introduce a new block operation >>>> (BLKIF_OP_INDIRECT) that passes grant references instead of segments >>>> in the request. This grant references are filled with arrays of >>>> blkif_request_segment_aligned, this way we can send more segments in a >>>> request. >>>> >>>> The proposed implementation sets the maximum number of indirect grefs >>>> (frames filled with blkif_request_segment_aligned) to 256 in the >>>> backend and 64 in the frontend. The value in the frontend has been >>>> chosen experimentally, and the backend value has been set to a sane >>>> value that allows expanding the maximum number of indirect descriptors >>>> in the frontend if needed. >>> >>> So we are still using a similar format of the form: >>> >>> , etc. >>> >>> Why not utilize a layout that fits with the bio sg? That way >>> we might not even have to do the bio_alloc call and instead can >>> setup an bio (and bio-list) with the appropiate offsets/list? I think we can already do this without changing the structure of the segments, we could just allocate a bio big enough to hold all the segments and queue them up (provided that the underlying storage device supports bios of this size). bio = bio_alloc(GFP_KERNEL, nseg); if (unlikely(bio == NULL)) goto fail_put_bio; biolist[nbio++] = bio; bio->bi_bdev = preq.bdev; bio->bi_private = pending_req; bio->bi_end_io = end_block_io_op; bio->bi_sector = preq.sector_number; for (i = 0; i < nseg; i++) { rc = bio_add_page(bio, pages[i], seg[i].nsec << 9, seg[i].buf & ~PAGE_MASK); if (rc == 0) goto fail_put_bio; } This seems to work with Linux blkfront/blkback, and I guess biolist in blkback only has one bio all the time. >>> Meaning that the format of the indirect descriptors is: >>> >>> Don't we need a length parameter? Also, next_index will be current+1, because we already send the segments sorted (using for_each_sg) in blkfront. >>> >>> We already know what the first_sec and last_sect are - they >>> are basically: sector_number + nr_segments * (whatever the sector size is) + offset >> >> This will of course be suitable for Linux, but what about other OSes, I >> know they support the traditional first_sec, last_sect (because it's >> already implemented), but I don't know how much work will it be for them >> to adopt this. If we have to do such a change I will have to check first >> that other frontend/backend can handle this easily also, I wouldn't like >> to simplify this for Linux by making it more difficult to implement in >> other OSes... > > I would think that most OSes use the same framework. The ones that > are of notable interest are the Windows and BSD. Lets CC James here Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see a really big benefit of using this new structure for segments instead of the current one. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/