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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230627183629.26571-1-nj.shetty@samsung.com> <CGME20230627184010epcas5p4bb6581408d9b67bbbcad633fb26689c9@epcas5p4.samsung.com>
 <20230627183629.26571-3-nj.shetty@samsung.com> <20230720074256.GA5042@lst.de>
In-Reply-To: <20230720074256.GA5042@lst.de>
From:   Nitesh Shetty <nitheshshetty@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:59:49 +0530
Message-ID: <CAOSviJ3oDSHk2HXyRZa=A43vCxh-n2YkyuW-qXNq-q=i6bNacQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 2/9] block: Add copy offload support infrastructure
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@samsung.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>, dm-devel@redhat.com,
        Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@nvidia.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        martin.petersen@oracle.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        willy@infradead.org, hare@suse.de, djwong@kernel.org,
        bvanassche@acm.org, ming.lei@redhat.com, dlemoal@kernel.org,
        gost.dev@samsung.com, Anuj Gupta <anuj20.g@samsung.com>,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 1:12=E2=80=AFPM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrot=
e:
> > Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure I suggested adding copy offload..
>
We meant for request based design, we will remove it.

> >  static inline unsigned int blk_rq_get_max_segments(struct request *rq)
> >  {
> >       if (req_op(rq) =3D=3D REQ_OP_DISCARD)
> > @@ -303,6 +310,8 @@ static inline bool bio_may_exceed_limits(struct bio=
 *bio,
> >               break;
> >       }
> >
> > +     if (unlikely(op_is_copy(bio->bi_opf)))
> > +             return false;
>
> This looks wrong to me.  I think the copy ops need to be added to the
> switch statement above as they have non-trivial splitting decisions.
> Or at least should have those as we're missing the code to split
> copy commands right now.
>

Agreed, copy will have non-trivial splitting decisions. But, I
couldn't think of scenarios where this could happen, as we check for
queue limits before issuing a copy. Do you see scenarios where split
could happen for copy here.

Acked for all other review comments.

Thank you,
Nitesh Shetty