Would anyone please give some comment here ?

Should we discard the merge_bvec_fn for raid5 and backport the bio split code 
there ?

Thanks in advance.
Jianchao


On 2019/8/21 19:42, Jianchao Wang wrote:
> Hi dear all
> 
> This is a question in older kernel versions.
> 
> We are using 3.10 series kernel in our production. And we encountered issue 
> as below,
> 
> When add a page into a bio, .merge_bvec_fn will be invoked down to the bottom,
> and the bio->bi_rw would be saved into bvec_merge_data.bi_rw as the following 
> code,
> 
> __bio_add_page
> ---
>       if (q->merge_bvec_fn) {
>               struct  bvm = {
>                       .bi_bdev = bio->bi_bdev,
>                       .bi_sector = bio->bi_iter.bi_sector,
>                       .bi_size = bio->bi_iter.bi_size,
>                       .bi_rw = bio->bi_rw,
>               };
> 
>               /*
>                * merge_bvec_fn() returns number of bytes it can accept
>                * at this offset
>                */
>               if (q->merge_bvec_fn(q, &bvm, bvec) < bvec->bv_len) {
>                       bvec->bv_page = NULL;
>                       bvec->bv_len = 0;
>                       bvec->bv_offset = 0;
>                       return 0;
>               }
>       }
> ---
> 
> However, it seems that the bio->bi_rw has not been set at the moment (set by 
> submit_bio), 
> so it is always zero.
> 
> We have a raid5 and the raid5_mergeable_bvec would always handle the write as 
> read and then
> we always get a write bio with a stripe chunk size which is not expected and 
> would degrade the
> performance. This is code,
> 
> raid5_mergeable_bvec
> ---
>       if ((bvm->bi_rw & 1) == WRITE)
>               return biovec->bv_len; /* always allow writes to be mergeable */
> 
>       if (mddev->new_chunk_sectors < mddev->chunk_sectors)
>               chunk_sectors = mddev->new_chunk_sectors;
>       max =  (chunk_sectors - ((sector & (chunk_sectors - 1)) + bio_sectors)) 
> << 9;
>       if (max < 0) max = 0;
>       if (max <= biovec->bv_len && bio_sectors == 0)
>               return biovec->bv_len;
>       else
>               return max;
> 
> ---
> 
> I have checked   
> v3.10.108
> v3.18.140
> v4.1.49
> but there seems not fix for it.
> 
> And maybe it would be fixed until 
> 8ae126660fddbeebb9251a174e6fa45b6ad8f932
> block: kill merge_bvec_fn() completely
> 
> Would anyone please give some suggestion on this ?
> Any comment will be welcomed.
> 
> Thanks in advance
> Jianchao
> 

Reply via email to