From: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>
Cc: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>, NeilBrown <neil@brown.name>,
Olga Kornievskaia <okorniev@redhat.com>,
Dai Ngo <Dai.Ngo@oracle.com>, Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>,
Trond Myklebust <trondmy@kernel.org>,
Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, hch@infradead.org,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/8] lib/iov_iter: remove piecewise bvec length checking in iov_iter_aligned_bvec
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 13:51:33 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aHAZxExjUt6pkiNh@kbusch-mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aG_28zNe3T-wt7L8@kernel.org>
On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 01:22:59PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 10:29:22AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> > The trim calculation assumes the current bi_size is already a block size
> > multiple, but it may not be with your propsal. So the trim bytes needs
> > to take into account the existing bi_size to know how much to trim off
> > to arrive at a proper total bi_size instead of assuming we can append a
> > block sized multiple carved out the current iov.
>
> The trim "calculation" doesn't assume anything, it just lops off
> whatever is past the end of the last logical_block_size aligned
> boundary of the requested pages (which is meant to be bi_size). The
> fact that the trim ever gets anything implies bi_size is *not* always
> logical_block_size aligned. No?
No. The iov must be a block size, but if it spans more pages than the
bio can hold (because of bi_max_vecs), the total size of the pages
gotten is only part of iov. That's the case that 'trim' is trying to
handle, as we only got part of the iov, so it's aligned down to make
sure the next iteration can consider perfectly block size aligned
iovecs. At every step of iovec iteration, the bio's bi_size is a block
size multiple.
Let's say we tried to allow smaller vecs. Assume block size of 512
bytes, and you send a direct IO with 4 vecs of 128 bytes each. That
would normally get rejected very early, but if you did send that to the
bio layer, the entirety of the first iov would get trimmed off and you
should get an EFAULT return.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-10 19:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-08 16:06 [RFC PATCH v2 0/8] NFSD: support DIO Mike Snitzer
2025-07-08 16:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/8] NFSD: Relocate the fh_want_write() and fh_drop_write() helpers Mike Snitzer
2025-07-10 13:59 ` Jeff Layton
2025-07-08 16:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/8] NFSD: Move the fh_getattr() helper Mike Snitzer
2025-07-10 13:59 ` Jeff Layton
2025-07-08 16:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/8] NFSD: filecache: add STATX_DIOALIGN and STATX_DIO_READ_ALIGN support Mike Snitzer
2025-07-10 7:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-07-14 17:46 ` Mike Snitzer
2025-07-08 16:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/8] lib/iov_iter: remove piecewise bvec length checking in iov_iter_aligned_bvec Mike Snitzer
2025-07-10 7:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-07-10 7:32 ` Mike Snitzer
2025-07-10 7:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-07-10 13:52 ` Jeff Layton
2025-07-10 14:48 ` Keith Busch
2025-07-10 16:12 ` Mike Snitzer
2025-07-10 16:29 ` Keith Busch
2025-07-10 17:22 ` Mike Snitzer
2025-07-10 19:51 ` Keith Busch [this message]
2025-07-10 19:57 ` Keith Busch
2025-08-01 15:23 ` Keith Busch
2025-08-01 16:10 ` Mike Snitzer
2025-07-08 16:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 5/8] NFSD: pass nfsd_file to nfsd_iter_read() Mike Snitzer
2025-07-08 16:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 6/8] NFSD: add io_cache_read controls to debugfs interface Mike Snitzer
2025-07-10 7:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-07-14 17:33 ` Mike Snitzer
2025-07-10 14:06 ` Jeff Layton
2025-07-10 22:46 ` Chuck Lever
2025-07-14 16:47 ` Mike Snitzer
2025-07-15 11:57 ` Jeff Layton
2025-07-08 16:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 7/8] NFSD: add io_cache_write " Mike Snitzer
2025-07-08 16:06 ` [RFC PATCH v2 8/8] NFSD: issue READs using O_DIRECT even if IO is misaligned Mike Snitzer
2025-07-08 21:22 ` Mike Snitzer
2025-07-10 7:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aHAZxExjUt6pkiNh@kbusch-mbp \
--to=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=Dai.Ngo@oracle.com \
--cc=anna@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=neil@brown.name \
--cc=okorniev@redhat.com \
--cc=snitzer@kernel.org \
--cc=tom@talpey.com \
--cc=trondmy@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox