From: Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@nvidia.com>
To: Caleb Sander Mateos <csander@purestorage.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] loop: use blk_rq_nr_phys_segments() instead of iterating bvecs
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 21:34:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <23b538a7-904d-4fc3-89ff-9a79904c0683@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADUfDZocSmRC2uSiY=1gayxQ5TGAcCnKQRSg+4SeficpQ3Bfhw@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/10/25 08:47, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2025 at 4:20 AM Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 04:01:00PM -0700, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
>>> The number of bvecs can be obtained directly from struct request's
>>> nr_phys_segments field via blk_rq_nr_phys_segments(), so use that
>>> instead of iterating over the bvecs an extra time.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Caleb Sander Mateos <csander@purestorage.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/block/loop.c | 5 +----
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
>>> index 13ce229d450c..8096478fad45 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
>>> @@ -346,16 +346,13 @@ static int lo_rw_aio(struct loop_device *lo, struct loop_cmd *cmd,
>>> struct request *rq = blk_mq_rq_from_pdu(cmd);
>>> struct bio *bio = rq->bio;
>>> struct file *file = lo->lo_backing_file;
>>> struct bio_vec tmp;
>>> unsigned int offset;
>>> - int nr_bvec = 0;
>>> + unsigned short nr_bvec = blk_rq_nr_phys_segments(rq);
>>> int ret;
>>>
>>> - rq_for_each_bvec(tmp, rq, rq_iter)
>>> - nr_bvec++;
>>> -
>> The two may not be same, since one bvec can be splitted into multiple segments.
> Hmm, io_buffer_register_bvec() already assumes
> blk_rq_nr_phys_segments() returns the number of bvecs iterated by
> rq_for_each_bvec(). I asked about this on the patch adding it, but
> Keith assures me they match:
> https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/Z7TmrB4_aBnZdFbo@kbusch-mbp/.
>
> Best,
> Caleb
>
Perhaps I don't understand how they will be same ? can share more details.
Segment Splitting :-
nr_bvec=1, blk_rq_nr_phys_segments=2 (see below)
- ONE large bvec split into MULTIPLE physical segments
- Patch above allocate array[2], but iterate and fill only array[0] ?
*[ 6155.673749] nullb_bio: 128K bio as ONE bvec: sector=0, size=131072, op=WRITE*
*[ 6155.673846] null_blk: #### null_handle_data_transfer:1375*
*[ 6155.673850] null_blk: nr_bvec=1 blk_rq_nr_phys_segments=2*
*[ 6155.674263] null_blk: #### null_handle_data_transfer:1375*
*[ 6155.674267] null_blk: nr_bvec=1 blk_rq_nr_phys_segments=1*
diff --git a/drivers/block/null_blk/main.c b/drivers/block/null_blk/main.c
index 1fe3373431ca..74ab0ba53f62 100644
--- a/drivers/block/null_blk/main.c
+++ b/drivers/block/null_blk/main.c
@@ -1364,7 +1364,18 @@ static blk_status_t null_handle_data_transfer(struct nullb_cmd *cmd,
unsigned int max_bytes = nr_sectors << SECTOR_SHIFT;
unsigned int transferred_bytes = 0;
struct req_iterator iter;
+ struct req_iterator rq_iter;
struct bio_vec bvec;
+ int nr_bvec = 0;
+
+ rq_for_each_bvec(bvec, rq, rq_iter)
+ nr_bvec++;
+
+ if (req_op(rq) == REQ_OP_WRITE) {
+ pr_info("#### %s:%d\n", __func__, __LINE__);
+ pr_info("nr_bvec=%d blk_rq_nr_phys_segments=%u\n",
+ nr_bvec, blk_rq_nr_phys_segments(rq));
+ }
spin_lock_irq(&nullb->lock);
rq_for_each_segment(bvec, rq, iter) {
-ck
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-10 21:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-08 23:00 [PATCH 0/2] " Caleb Sander Mateos
2025-11-08 23:01 ` [PATCH 1/2] loop: " Caleb Sander Mateos
2025-11-09 12:19 ` Ming Lei
2025-11-09 19:05 ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
2025-11-10 16:47 ` Caleb Sander Mateos
2025-11-10 21:34 ` Chaitanya Kulkarni [this message]
2025-11-11 1:22 ` Ming Lei
2025-11-08 23:01 ` [PATCH 2/2] zloop: " Caleb Sander Mateos
2025-11-11 9:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-11-11 18:19 ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
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=23b538a7-904d-4fc3-89ff-9a79904c0683@nvidia.com \
--to=chaitanyak@nvidia.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=csander@purestorage.com \
--cc=dlemoal@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®