[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v5 11/12] block: Add bio_clone_bioset()
- From: Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>
- To: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet google com>
- Cc: axboe kernel dk, dm-devel redhat com, linux-kernel vger kernel org, linux-bcache vger kernel org, mpatocka redhat com, vgoyal redhat com, yehuda hq newdream net, sage newdream net, agk redhat com, drbd-dev lists linbit com
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v5 11/12] block: Add bio_clone_bioset()
- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 23:52:51 -0700
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 07:56:10PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > So, bio_clone() loses its function comment. Also, does it even make
> > sense to call bio_clone() from fs_bio_set?
>
> I'll re add the function comment if you want, just for a single line
> wrapper I don't know if it's worth the cost - comments get out of date,
> and they're more stuff to wade through.
People actually look at docbook generated docs. I don't know why but
they do. It's a utility function at block layer. Please just add the
comment.
> > Let's say it's so, then
> > what's the difference from using _kmalloc variant?
>
> bio_kmalloc() fails if nr_iovecs > 1024, bio_alloc_bioset() fails if
> nr_iovecs > 256
>
> and bio_alloc_bioset() is mempool backed, bio_kmalloc() is not.
>
> AFAICT that's it.
So, the thing is being mempool backed doesn't mean anything if
multiple layers use the pool. I *suspect* fs_bio_set is supposed to
be used by fs layer - ie. where bios originate. The reason why I
wondered about bio_clone() is that bio_clone() is almost always used
from stacking drivers and stacking driver tapping into fs reserve is
buggy. So, I'm wondering whether cloning from fs_bio_set should be
supported at all.
Thanks.
--
tejun
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]