Received: by 2002:ad5:474a:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id i10csp1892612imu; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 17:31:28 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/WAhOWuAIoIe/KV3pyNMqgQ4uXNOt4WeVkOPlXgjoZiITleqsOODfOjO5W2eob8kNxoALtL X-Received: by 2002:a63:9712:: with SMTP id n18mr34687841pge.295.1543455088534; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 17:31:28 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1543455088; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=oKfdukTaD/yg26zcLj2Xl0BaaGciuJbm1CKkLJNH+SLKQJRJj6TLCG5/FsGi/aEtRS 9F1kqC+FPLtIi2N8895J1HeUdMpZTMw+mMva43lkB1/gWg51Pu+1lKOQvflywzfWXNVk nShgcmmxw96wF8EE6yAttR+ySf33UthmuoRW+o5frKhoSuro6gU7PF6ft3qiyPeTOgEe gVdVPkUESXP03SotgeFG+x5U3QYNfkpLtqzEGiswTT10kPsBrRG+nm8G/Q6c4ZFZE6Xv wFpR/V1mn5B6Mw6Bl6chS/GBzbZzu0VvWvqE2k2bDSy73O4yBzawck04fqBzhhNx86h4 /M+g== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=Iy1t8Wgk/5mNx99jccis8iQD4Oxj69FJI4RgoTL3WZQ=; b=PlJH2b5g3ElDHK/K7Gp9Wj726NsOpLAEzNITKoOZ2UHsJTA8sPqJiMpTS0lTdHTAjI vlQtN/Onx0wc0i0mrEtzaHfUDt+Kw11WYFW4Oquj9cMclRr+qDk7vZvxy10gkgCjLiUB 73+8tOg984SMhga2j4Nitzpy6LHgHH5Lg+pD4och81Nz7oXA9+6tNeBSjrh4etL+QKyS D2M7y0Z96q0PJBSTS4F2cOi1i8j1y9Msd840iGqfJSCzQJrkB+k2AUkr5He/sfkG/UTY c8mUDJL0G5W5hbWKUhUdNAHsrrg0Pjk7huYS4rhuT3r/DlFsK7gvVUd5gJm9A50yHdgn zj1A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 43si377794plb.176.2018.11.28.17.31.10; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 17:31:28 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727203AbeK2MeD (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 29 Nov 2018 07:34:03 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46546 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726786AbeK2MeD (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2018 07:34:03 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40E1C3DDB6; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 01:30:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ming.t460p (ovpn-8-23.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.8.23]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9D9661522; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 01:30:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:30:00 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Jens Axboe , Mike Snitzer , "Ewan D. Milne" Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Theodore Ts'o , Omar Sandoval , Sagi Grimberg , Dave Chinner , Kent Overstreet , Mike Snitzer , dm-devel@redhat.com, Alexander Viro , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Shaohua Li , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, David Sterba , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, "Darrick J . Wong" , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Gao Xiang , Christoph Hellwig , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Coly Li , linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, Boaz Harrosh , Bob Peterson , cluster-devel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V12 00/20] block: support multi-page bvec Message-ID: <20181129012959.GC23249@ming.t460p> References: <20181126021720.19471-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <7096bc4e-0617-29d0-a90d-ae7caf09a16d@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7096bc4e-0617-29d0-a90d-ae7caf09a16d@kernel.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.29]); Thu, 29 Nov 2018 01:30:27 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 06:44:00AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 11/25/18 7:17 PM, Ming Lei wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This patchset brings multi-page bvec into block layer: > > > > 1) what is multi-page bvec? > > > > Multipage bvecs means that one 'struct bio_bvec' can hold multiple pages > > which are physically contiguous instead of one single page used in linux > > kernel for long time. > > > > 2) why is multi-page bvec introduced? > > > > Kent proposed the idea[1] first. > > > > As system's RAM becomes much bigger than before, and huge page, transparent > > huge page and memory compaction are widely used, it is a bit easy now > > to see physically contiguous pages from fs in I/O. On the other hand, from > > block layer's view, it isn't necessary to store intermediate pages into bvec, > > and it is enough to just store the physicallly contiguous 'segment' in each > > io vector. > > > > Also huge pages are being brought to filesystem and swap [2][6], we can > > do IO on a hugepage each time[3], which requires that one bio can transfer > > at least one huge page one time. Turns out it isn't flexiable to change > > BIO_MAX_PAGES simply[3][5]. Multipage bvec can fit in this case very well. > > As we saw, if CONFIG_THP_SWAP is enabled, BIO_MAX_PAGES can be configured > > as much bigger, such as 512, which requires at least two 4K pages for holding > > the bvec table. > > I'm pretty happy with this patchset at this point, looks like it just > needs a respin to address the last comments. My only concern is whether I will address the last comment from Omar on patch of '[PATCH V12 01/20] btrfs: remove various bio_offset arguments', we may use the approach in V11 simply. > it's a good idea to target this for 4.21, or if we should wait until > 4.22. 4.21 has a fairly substantial amount of changes in terms of block > already, it's not the best timing for something of this magnitude too. Yeah, I understand. > > I'm going back and forth on those one a bit. Any concerns with > pushing this to 4.22? My only one concern is about the warning of "blk_cloned_rq_check_limits: over max segments limit" on dm multipath, and seems Ewan and Mike is waiting for this fix. thanks, Ming