Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28414C43381 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:32:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA8DD2084F for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:32:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728022AbfBUNc2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:32:28 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:33120 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725385AbfBUNc1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:32:27 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1LDTnCq008339 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:32:27 -0500 Received: from e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.100]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qsupvkkf1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:32:26 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:32:24 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.196) by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.134) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:32:20 -0000 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x1LDWJS521823738 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:32:19 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B9244204F; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:32:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B12C742054; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:32:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.85.75.223]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:32:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Chandan Rajendra To: Eric Biggers Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, jaegeuk@kernel.org Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [RFC PATCH 06/10] Introduce REQ_POST_READ_PROC bio flag Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 18:33:24 +0530 Organization: IBM In-Reply-To: <20190220002059.GG12177@gmail.com> References: <20190218100433.20048-1-chandan@linux.ibm.com> <20190218100433.20048-7-chandan@linux.ibm.com> <20190220002059.GG12177@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19022113-0016-0000-0000-000002593138 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19022113-0017-0000-0000-000032B38159 Message-Id: <8936377.epoSEyofgi@localhost.localdomain> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-02-21_08:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=5 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902210099 Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 5:51:00 AM IST Eric Biggers wrote: > Hi Chandan, > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 03:34:29PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > > Ext4 and F2FS currently use a non-NULL value stored at bio->bi_private > > to determine if the contents of the bio need to be "post processed" > > i.e. whether its contents need to be decrypted and/or verified. For > > block size < page size scenario, bio->bi_private would hold a pointer to > > buffer_head. Hence, this commit adds the new flag REQ_POST_READ_PROC to > > be able to decisively check for post process requirement for a bio. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra > > --- > > fs/ext4/readpage.c | 11 +++++++++-- > > fs/post_read_process.c | 2 +- > > include/linux/blk_types.h | 2 ++ > > 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/readpage.c b/fs/ext4/readpage.c > > index 8943fc41fd33..c7dbab35deaa 100644 > > --- a/fs/ext4/readpage.c > > +++ b/fs/ext4/readpage.c > > @@ -245,6 +245,7 @@ int ext4_mpage_readpages(struct address_space *mapping, > > } > > if (bio == NULL) { > > struct bio_post_read_ctx *ctx; > > + unsigned int op_flags = 0; > > > > bio = bio_alloc(GFP_KERNEL, > > min_t(int, nr_pages, BIO_MAX_PAGES)); > > @@ -259,8 +260,14 @@ int ext4_mpage_readpages(struct address_space *mapping, > > bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = blocks[0] << (blkbits - 9); > > bio->bi_end_io = mpage_end_io; > > bio->bi_private = ctx; > > - bio_set_op_attrs(bio, REQ_OP_READ, > > - is_readahead ? REQ_RAHEAD : 0); > > + > > + if (is_readahead) > > + op_flags |= REQ_RAHEAD; > > + > > + if (ctx) > > + op_flags |= REQ_POST_READ_PROC; > > + > > + bio_set_op_attrs(bio, REQ_OP_READ, op_flags); > > } > > > > length = first_hole << blkbits; > > diff --git a/fs/post_read_process.c b/fs/post_read_process.c > > index 1f8663d70247..66c1c6e57e70 100644 > > --- a/fs/post_read_process.c > > +++ b/fs/post_read_process.c > > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ void put_bio_post_read_ctx(struct bio_post_read_ctx *ctx) > > > > bool bio_post_read_required(struct bio *bio) > > { > > - return bio->bi_private && !bio->bi_status; > > + return bio->bi_opf & REQ_POST_READ_PROC; > > } > > > > static int __init bio_init_post_read_processing(void) > > diff --git a/include/linux/blk_types.h b/include/linux/blk_types.h > > index 5c7e7f859a24..6904945c8c40 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/blk_types.h > > +++ b/include/linux/blk_types.h > > @@ -320,6 +320,7 @@ enum req_flag_bits { > > __REQ_RAHEAD, /* read ahead, can fail anytime */ > > __REQ_BACKGROUND, /* background IO */ > > __REQ_NOWAIT, /* Don't wait if request will block */ > > + __REQ_POST_READ_PROC, > > > > /* command specific flags for REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES: */ > > __REQ_NOUNMAP, /* do not free blocks when zeroing */ > > @@ -346,6 +347,7 @@ enum req_flag_bits { > > #define REQ_RAHEAD (1ULL << __REQ_RAHEAD) > > #define REQ_BACKGROUND (1ULL << __REQ_BACKGROUND) > > #define REQ_NOWAIT (1ULL << __REQ_NOWAIT) > > +#define REQ_POST_READ_PROC (1ULL << __REQ_POST_READ_PROC) > > #define REQ_NOUNMAP (1ULL << __REQ_NOUNMAP) > > #define REQ_HIPRI (1ULL << __REQ_HIPRI) > > > > I don't think this is an appropriate use of a request flag, as request flags are > meant for the block layer. > > Also doesn't the bio still need a pointer to the bio_post_read_ctx anyway? So I > don't see how this would solve the problem, if ->bi_private is already used. I had glanced across block_read_full_page() function which implements reading non-contiguous blocks mapped by the page in block size < page size scenario. Here bio->bi_private would point to the buffer head that represents the block on which read I/O was performed. In such a case, bio_post_read_required() would always return true. Hence I decided to add this request flag. Now, I believe we can actually save away the ctx pointer in bh->b_private member and later decide on whether the buffer head requires post processing based on bh->bi_private's non-NULL value. I will have to read up the code more thoroughly to confirm this. -- chandan