Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <f68a45b1-c986-bc77-d956-e6bafe821d52@veeam.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Jul 2022 09:58:25 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/20] block, blksnap: snapshot image block device
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
CC:     "axboe@kernel.dk" <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <1655135593-1900-1-git-send-email-sergei.shtepa@veeam.com>
 <1655135593-1900-16-git-send-email-sergei.shtepa@veeam.com>
 <YsWKhjDV18DeyEZ8@infradead.org>
 <49039d2b-e4bc-62a1-7b4a-a78001a2f430@veeam.com>
 <YscW1Byo0PQq5C84@infradead.org>
From:   Sergei Shtepa <sergei.shtepa@veeam.com>
In-Reply-To: <YscW1Byo0PQq5C84@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


> On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 11:16:42AM +0200, Sergei Shtepa wrote:
>> The module creates a block device for each snapshot image.
>> To make a backup of a block device, the backup tool reads snapshot image.
>> This snapshot image block device allows to mount a file system on it
>> and perform the necessary preparation. If not for this requirement,
>> it would be possible to implement reading via an additional ioctl.
>> But that wouldn't be a good design, I think.
> Ok, got it.  It was just me who was confused.
> 
>> Perhaps I have implemented this block device incorrectly?
>> Processing requests of the snapshot image block device is started
>> in the function snapimage_queue_rq(). And ends in the 
>> snapimage_queue_work() in another kernel thread. Therefore, when
>> the request is initialized in snapimage_init_request(), a kernel worker
>> is prepared.
> I don't think it is wrong, but there is some potential for optimization.
> 
> Is there a reson this is implemented as a blk-mq driver vs a bio
> based driver that just implements ->submit_bio?  The latter has
> the advantage that you are always called in user context, and don't
> need the extra workqueue offload. 
> 
> The block layer also generally assumes that blk-mq drivers don't
> call submit_bio_noacct underneath, so if we can't I'd much
> prefer the bio based driver approach here.
> 

There was a goal to use the kernel innovations whenever possible.
Of course, it makes sense to return to bio based if it allows to
achieve better performance. This is not a matter of principle.