Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-193521-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <6656cc7a.050a0220.d15d9.9bc8SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 06:17:36 +0000
From: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@samsung.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Alasdair
	Kergon <agk@redhat.com>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>, Mikulas Patocka
	<mpatocka@redhat.com>, Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>, Christoph Hellwig
	<hch@lst.de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>, Chaitanya Kulkarni
	<kch@nvidia.com>, Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Christian
	Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	martin.petersen@oracle.com, david@fromorbit.com, hare@suse.de,
	damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com, anuj20.g@samsung.com, joshi.k@samsung.com,
	nitheshshetty@gmail.com, gost.dev@samsung.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 02/12] Add infrastructure for copy offload in block
 and request layer.
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <eda6c198-3a29-4da4-94db-305cfe28d3d6@acm.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="----u98hW3AvpxW_WMqzG8XaJinKydZ84Ygy6oP0sovTVoTPagnQ=_119f1_"
CMS-TYPE: 105P
DLP-Filter: Pass
References: <20240520102033.9361-1-nj.shetty@samsung.com>
	<CGME20240520102842epcas5p4949334c2587a15b8adab2c913daa622f@epcas5p4.samsung.com>
	<20240520102033.9361-3-nj.shetty@samsung.com>
	<eda6c198-3a29-4da4-94db-305cfe28d3d6@acm.org>

------u98hW3AvpxW_WMqzG8XaJinKydZ84Ygy6oP0sovTVoTPagnQ=_119f1_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Disposition: inline

On 24/05/24 01:33PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>On 5/20/24 03:20, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
>>We add two new opcode REQ_OP_COPY_DST, REQ_OP_COPY_SRC.
>>Since copy is a composite operation involving src and dst sectors/lba,
>>each needs to be represented by a separate bio to make it compatible
>>with device mapper.
>>We expect caller to take a plug and send bio with destination information,
>>followed by bio with source information.
>>Once the dst bio arrives we form a request and wait for source
>>bio. Upon arrival of source bio we merge these two bio's and send
>>corresponding request down to device driver.
>>Merging non copy offload bio is avoided by checking for copy specific
>>opcodes in merge function.
>
>In this patch I don't see any changes for blk_attempt_bio_merge(). Does
>this mean that combining REQ_OP_COPY_DST and REQ_OP_COPY_SRC will never
>happen if the QUEUE_FLAG_NOMERGES request queue flag has been set?
>
Yes, in this case copy won't work, as both src and dst bio reach driver
as part of separate requests.
We will add this as part of documentation.

>Can it happen that the REQ_NOMERGE flag is set by __bio_split_to_limits()
>for REQ_OP_COPY_DST or REQ_OP_COPY_SRC bios? Will this happen if the
>following condition is met?
>
>dst_bio->nr_phys_segs + src_bio->nr_phys_segs > max_segments
>
No, this should not happen. We don't use bio_split_rw for copy.
We have added a separate function to check for split incase of
copy(bio_split_copy), which doesn't allow copy bio splits,
hence REQ_NOMERGE flag won't be set.

>Is it allowed to set REQ_PREFLUSH or REQ_FUA for REQ_OP_COPY_DST or
>REQ_OP_COPY_SRC bios? I'm asking this because these flags disable merging.
>
>From include/linux/blk_types.h:
>
>#define REQ_NOMERGE_FLAGS (REQ_NOMERGE | REQ_PREFLUSH | REQ_FUA)
>
No, setting these flags won't allow copy bio's to merge and hence copy
won't work.
We suggest to use helper API blkdev_copy_offload to achieve the
copy which won't be setting these flags.

Thank You,
Nitesh Shetty

------u98hW3AvpxW_WMqzG8XaJinKydZ84Ygy6oP0sovTVoTPagnQ=_119f1_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"


------u98hW3AvpxW_WMqzG8XaJinKydZ84Ygy6oP0sovTVoTPagnQ=_119f1_--