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;
Date:   Wed, 2 Aug 2023 12:44:37 -0400
From:   Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/20] block: Allow bio_iov_iter_get_pages() with
 bio->bi_bdev unset
Message-ID: <20230802164437.jskidimw32dofxpi@moria.home.lan>
References: <20230712211115.2174650-1-kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
 <20230712211115.2174650-6-kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
 <ZL62HKrAJapXfcaR@infradead.org>
 <20230725024312.alq7df33ckede2gb@moria.home.lan>
 <ZMEeOZZcOu2p0SDP@infradead.org>
 <20230801190450.3lbr2hjdi7t52anx@moria.home.lan>
 <ZMpCRpNyt0EJpg9G@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZMpCRpNyt0EJpg9G@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 04:47:18AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 03:04:50PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > Because blk-cgroup not only works at the lowest level in the stack,
> > > but also for stackable block devices.  It's not a design decision I
> > > particularly agree with, but it's been there forever.
> > 
> > You're setting the association only to the highest block device in the
> > stack - how on earth is it supposed to work with anything lower?
> 
> Hey, ask the cgroup folks as they come up with it.  I'm not going to
> defend the logic here.
> 
> > And looking at bio_associate_blkg(), this code looks completely broken.
> > It's checking bio->bi_blkg, but that's just been set to NULL in
> > bio_init().
> 
> It's checking bi_blkg because it can also be called from bio_set_dev.

So bio_set_dev() has subtly different behaviour than passing the block
device to bio_init()?

That's just broken.

> 
> > And this is your code, so I think you need to go over this again.
> 
> It's "my code" in the sene of that I did one big round of unwinding
> the even bigger mess that was there.  There is another few rounds needed
> for the code to vaguely make sense.

Well, I'll watch for those patches then...