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;
Date:   Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:00:24 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To:     Martijn Coenen <maco@android.com>
Cc:     axboe@kernel.dk, hch@lst.de, bvanassche@acm.org,
        Chaitanya.Kulkarni@wdc.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] loop: Add LOOP_SET_FD_WITH_OFFSET ioctl.
Message-ID: <20200330010024.GA23640@ming.t460p>
References: <20200329140459.18155-1-maco@android.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200329140459.18155-1-maco@android.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 04:04:59PM +0200, Martijn Coenen wrote:
> Configuring a loop device for a filesystem that is located at an offset
> currently requires calling LOOP_SET_FD and LOOP_SET_STATUS(64)
> consecutively. This has some downsides.
> 
> The most important downside is that it can be slow. Here's setting
> up ~70 regular loop devices on an x86 Android device:
> 
> vsoc_x86:/system/apex # time for i in `seq 30 100`;
> do losetup -r /dev/block/loop$i com.android.adbd.apex; done
>     0m01.85s real     0m00.01s user     0m00.01s system
> 
> Here's configuring ~70 devices in the same way, but with an offset:
> 
> vsoc_x86:/system/apex # time for i in `seq 30 100`;
> do losetup -r -o 4096 /dev/block/loop$i com.android.adbd.apex; done
>     0m03.40s real     0m00.02s user     0m00.03s system
> 
> This is almost twice as slow; the main reason for this slowness is that
> LOOP_SET_STATUS(64) calls blk_mq_freeze_queue() to freeze the associated
> queue; this requires waiting for RCU synchronization, which I've
> measured can take about 15-20ms on this device on average.
> 
> A more minor downside of having to do two ioctls is that on devices with
> max_part > 0, the kernel will initiate a partition scan, which is
> needless work if the image is at an offset.
> 
> This change introduces a new ioctl to combine setting the backing file
> together with the offset, which avoids the above problems. Adding more
> parameters could be a consideration, but offset appears to be the only
> commonly used parameter that is required for accessing the device
> safely.

The new ioctl LOOP_SET_FD_WITH_OFFSET looks not generic enough, could
you consider to add one ioctl LOOP_SET_FD_AND_STATUS to cover both
SET_FD and SET_STATUS so that using two ioctl() to setup loop can become
deprecated finally?


Thanks,
Ming