Hi,
The 1st & 3rd patch fixes bio size alignment issue.
The 2nd patch cleans up __blkdev_issue_discard() a bit.
Thanks,
Ming Lei (3): block: make sure discard bio is aligned with logical block size block: cleanup __blkdev_issue_discard() block: make sure writesame bio is aligned with logical block size
block/blk-lib.c | 25 ++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
Cc: Rui Salvaterra rsalvaterra@gmail.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: Mike Snitzer snitzer@redhat.com Cc: Christoph Hellwig hch@lst.de Cc: Xiao Ni xni@redhat.com Cc: Mariusz Dabrowski mariusz.dabrowski@intel.com
Obviously the created discard bio has to be aligned with logical block size.
Fixes: 744889b7cbb56a6 ("block: don't deal with discard limit in blkdev_issue_discard()") Reported-by: Rui Salvaterra rsalvaterra@gmail.com Cc: Rui Salvaterra rsalvaterra@gmail.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: Mike Snitzer snitzer@redhat.com Cc: Christoph Hellwig hch@lst.de Cc: Xiao Ni xni@redhat.com Cc: Mariusz Dabrowski mariusz.dabrowski@intel.com Signed-off-by: Ming Lei ming.lei@redhat.com --- block/blk-lib.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-lib.c b/block/blk-lib.c index bbd44666f2b5..aa3944946b2f 100644 --- a/block/blk-lib.c +++ b/block/blk-lib.c @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ int __blkdev_issue_discard(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector, if (!req_sects) goto fail; if (req_sects > UINT_MAX >> 9) - req_sects = UINT_MAX >> 9; + req_sects = (UINT_MAX >> 9) & ~bs_mask;
end_sect = sector + req_sects;
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 09:44:15AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
if (req_sects > UINT_MAX >> 9)
req_sects = UINT_MAX >> 9;
req_sects = (UINT_MAX >> 9) & ~bs_mask;Given that we have this same thing duplicated in write zeroes what about a documented helper?
IMO, using UINT_MAX & bs_mask is better because it is self-explanatory in the context.
If we introduce one helper, it may not be easy to find a better name than UINT_MAX.
thanks, Ming
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 08:51:31AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 09:44:15AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
if (req_sects > UINT_MAX >> 9)
req_sects = UINT_MAX >> 9;
req_sects = (UINT_MAX >> 9) & ~bs_mask;Given that we have this same thing duplicated in write zeroes what about a documented helper?
IMO, using UINT_MAX & bs_mask is better because it is self-explanatory in the context.
I don't think it is in any way. I understand it because I know the code, but there is nothing that documents why we do that.
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 04:49:47PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 08:51:31AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 09:44:15AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
if (req_sects > UINT_MAX >> 9)
req_sects = UINT_MAX >> 9;
req_sects = (UINT_MAX >> 9) & ~bs_mask;Given that we have this same thing duplicated in write zeroes what about a documented helper?
IMO, using UINT_MAX & bs_mask is better because it is self-explanatory in the context.
I don't think it is in any way. I understand it because I know the code, but there is nothing that documents why we do that.
Then how about introducing this helper?
/* + * The max sectors one bio can handle is 'UINT_MAX >> 9' becasue + * bvec_iter.bi_size is defined as 'unsigned int', also it has to aligned + * to with logical block size which is minimum accepted unit by hardware. + */ +static inline unsigned int blk_max_allowed_max_secotrs(struct request_queue *q) +{ + return round_down(UINT_MAX, queue_logical_block_size(q)) >> 9; +} + +/*
Thanks, Ming
Obviously the created writesame bio has to be aligned with logical block size.
Fixes: b49a0871be31a745b2ef ("block: remove split code in blkdev_issue_{discard,write_same}") Cc: Rui Salvaterra rsalvaterra@gmail.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: Mike Snitzer snitzer@redhat.com Cc: Christoph Hellwig hch@lst.de Cc: Xiao Ni xni@redhat.com Cc: Mariusz Dabrowski mariusz.dabrowski@intel.com Signed-off-by: Ming Lei ming.lei@redhat.com --- block/blk-lib.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-lib.c b/block/blk-lib.c index 93011785f710..1750f0e480c0 100644 --- a/block/blk-lib.c +++ b/block/blk-lib.c @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ static int __blkdev_issue_write_same(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector, return -EOPNOTSUPP;
/* Ensure that max_write_same_sectors doesn't overflow bi_size */ - max_write_same_sectors = UINT_MAX >> 9; + max_write_same_sectors = (UINT_MAX >> 9) & ~bs_mask;
while (nr_sects) { bio = next_bio(bio, 1, gfp_mask);
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Christoph Hellwig -
Ming Lei