Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54862 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726784AbeKSTaM (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2018 14:30:12 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:06:46 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Omar Sandoval Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Dave Chinner , Kent Overstreet , Mike Snitzer , dm-devel@redhat.com, Alexander Viro , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Shaohua Li , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org, David Sterba , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, "Darrick J . Wong" , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Gao Xiang , Christoph Hellwig , Theodore Ts'o , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Coly Li , linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, Boaz Harrosh , Bob Peterson , cluster-devel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 17/19] block: don't use bio->bi_vcnt to figure out segment number Message-ID: <20181119090645.GN16736@ming.t460p> References: <20181115085306.9910-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20181115085306.9910-18-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20181116021140.GL23828@vader> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181116021140.GL23828@vader> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 06:11:40PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 04:53:04PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > It is wrong to use bio->bi_vcnt to figure out how many segments > > there are in the bio even though CLONED flag isn't set on this bio, > > because this bio may be splitted or advanced. > > > > So always use bio_segments() in blk_recount_segments(), and it shouldn't > > cause any performance loss now because the physical segment number is figured > > out in blk_queue_split() and BIO_SEG_VALID is set meantime since > > bdced438acd83ad83a6c ("block: setup bi_phys_segments after splitting"). > > > > Cc: Dave Chinner > > Cc: Kent Overstreet > > Fixes: 7f60dcaaf91 ("block: blk-merge: fix blk_recount_segments()") > > From what I can tell, the problem was originally introduced by > 76d8137a3113 ("blk-merge: recaculate segment if it isn't less than max segments") > > Is that right? Indeed, will update it in next version. Thanks, Ming