* [PATCH 0/3] block: fix bi_vcnt misuse for cloned bio
@ 2025-12-18 9:31 Ming Lei
2025-12-18 9:31 ` [PATCH 1/3] block: fix bio_may_need_split() by using bvec iterator way Ming Lei
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ming Lei @ 2025-12-18 9:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe, linux-block
Cc: io-uring, Caleb Sander Mateos, huang-jl, Nitesh Shetty, Ming Lei
Hello Guys,
The 1st patch removes .bi_vcnt from bio_may_need_split() because the
incoming bio may be cloned.
The 2nd patch doesn't initialize cloned bio's bi_vcnt in
bio_iov_bvec_set().
The 3rd patch removes iov iter nr_segs re-calculation for io_import_kbuf().
Ming Lei (3):
block: fix bio_may_need_split() by using bvec iterator way
block: don't initialize bi_vcnt for cloned bio in bio_iov_bvec_set()
io_uring: don't re-calculate iov_iter nr_segs in io_import_kbuf()
block/bio.c | 2 +-
block/blk.h | 13 ++++++++++---
io_uring/rsrc.c | 10 ----------
3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
--
2.47.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/3] block: fix bio_may_need_split() by using bvec iterator way
2025-12-18 9:31 [PATCH 0/3] block: fix bi_vcnt misuse for cloned bio Ming Lei
@ 2025-12-18 9:31 ` Ming Lei
2025-12-18 9:37 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-12-20 8:19 ` Nitesh Shetty
2025-12-18 9:31 ` [PATCH 2/3] block: don't initialize bi_vcnt for cloned bio in bio_iov_bvec_set() Ming Lei
2025-12-18 9:31 ` [PATCH 3/3] io_uring: don't re-calculate iov_iter nr_segs in io_import_kbuf() Ming Lei
2 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ming Lei @ 2025-12-18 9:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe, linux-block
Cc: io-uring, Caleb Sander Mateos, huang-jl, Nitesh Shetty, Ming Lei
->bi_vcnt doesn't make sense for cloned bio, which is perfectly fine
passed to bio_may_need_split().
So fix bio_may_need_split() by not taking ->bi_vcnt directly, instead
checking with help from bio size and bvec->len.
Meantime retrieving the 1st bvec via __bvec_iter_bvec().
Fixes: abd45c159df5 ("block: handle fast path of bio splitting inline")
Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
---
block/blk.h | 13 ++++++++++---
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/blk.h b/block/blk.h
index e4c433f62dfc..a0b9cecba8fa 100644
--- a/block/blk.h
+++ b/block/blk.h
@@ -371,12 +371,19 @@ struct bio *bio_split_zone_append(struct bio *bio,
static inline bool bio_may_need_split(struct bio *bio,
const struct queue_limits *lim)
{
+ const struct bio_vec *bv;
+
if (lim->chunk_sectors)
return true;
- if (bio->bi_vcnt != 1)
+
+ if ((bio_op(bio) != REQ_OP_READ && bio_op(bio) != REQ_OP_WRITE) ||
+ !bio->bi_io_vec)
+ return true;
+
+ bv = __bvec_iter_bvec(bio->bi_io_vec, bio->bi_iter);
+ if (bio->bi_iter.bi_size > bv->bv_len)
return true;
- return bio->bi_io_vec->bv_len + bio->bi_io_vec->bv_offset >
- lim->max_fast_segment_size;
+ return bv->bv_len + bv->bv_offset > lim->max_fast_segment_size;
}
/**
--
2.47.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/3] block: don't initialize bi_vcnt for cloned bio in bio_iov_bvec_set()
2025-12-18 9:31 [PATCH 0/3] block: fix bi_vcnt misuse for cloned bio Ming Lei
2025-12-18 9:31 ` [PATCH 1/3] block: fix bio_may_need_split() by using bvec iterator way Ming Lei
@ 2025-12-18 9:31 ` Ming Lei
2025-12-18 9:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-12-18 9:31 ` [PATCH 3/3] io_uring: don't re-calculate iov_iter nr_segs in io_import_kbuf() Ming Lei
2 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ming Lei @ 2025-12-18 9:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe, linux-block
Cc: io-uring, Caleb Sander Mateos, huang-jl, Nitesh Shetty, Ming Lei
For a cloned bio, bi_vcnt should not be initialized since the bio_vec
array is shared and owned by the original bio. Instead, initialize
bi_iter.bi_idx to 0 to properly start iteration from the beginning
of the shared bio_vec array.
This also avoids to touch iov_iter.nr_segs, which belongs to iov_iter
implementation detail.
Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
---
block/bio.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/block/bio.c b/block/bio.c
index e726c0e280a8..79d1fef8ad0f 100644
--- a/block/bio.c
+++ b/block/bio.c
@@ -1162,8 +1162,8 @@ void bio_iov_bvec_set(struct bio *bio, const struct iov_iter *iter)
{
WARN_ON_ONCE(bio->bi_max_vecs);
- bio->bi_vcnt = iter->nr_segs;
bio->bi_io_vec = (struct bio_vec *)iter->bvec;
+ bio->bi_iter.bi_idx = 0;
bio->bi_iter.bi_bvec_done = iter->iov_offset;
bio->bi_iter.bi_size = iov_iter_count(iter);
bio_set_flag(bio, BIO_CLONED);
--
2.47.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 3/3] io_uring: don't re-calculate iov_iter nr_segs in io_import_kbuf()
2025-12-18 9:31 [PATCH 0/3] block: fix bi_vcnt misuse for cloned bio Ming Lei
2025-12-18 9:31 ` [PATCH 1/3] block: fix bio_may_need_split() by using bvec iterator way Ming Lei
2025-12-18 9:31 ` [PATCH 2/3] block: don't initialize bi_vcnt for cloned bio in bio_iov_bvec_set() Ming Lei
@ 2025-12-18 9:31 ` Ming Lei
2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ming Lei @ 2025-12-18 9:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe, linux-block
Cc: io-uring, Caleb Sander Mateos, huang-jl, Nitesh Shetty, Ming Lei
We have provide correct byte counts to iov_iter, and it is enough to
cap the iteration, not necessary to re-calculate exact nr_segs.
Especially the previous two patches avoid to use bio->bi_vcnt as
split hint, and don't use iov_iter->nr_segs to initialize bio->bi_vcnt.
The iov_iter nr_segs re-calculation[1] is added for avoiding unnecessary
bio split, which is fixed now by the previous two patches.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2025/4/16/351
Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
---
io_uring/rsrc.c | 10 ----------
1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/io_uring/rsrc.c b/io_uring/rsrc.c
index a63474b331bf..ee6283676ba7 100644
--- a/io_uring/rsrc.c
+++ b/io_uring/rsrc.c
@@ -1055,16 +1055,6 @@ static int io_import_kbuf(int ddir, struct iov_iter *iter,
iov_iter_bvec(iter, ddir, imu->bvec, imu->nr_bvecs, count);
iov_iter_advance(iter, offset);
-
- if (count < imu->len) {
- const struct bio_vec *bvec = iter->bvec;
-
- while (len > bvec->bv_len) {
- len -= bvec->bv_len;
- bvec++;
- }
- iter->nr_segs = 1 + bvec - iter->bvec;
- }
return 0;
}
--
2.47.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: fix bio_may_need_split() by using bvec iterator way
2025-12-18 9:31 ` [PATCH 1/3] block: fix bio_may_need_split() by using bvec iterator way Ming Lei
@ 2025-12-18 9:37 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-12-18 9:45 ` Ming Lei
2025-12-20 8:19 ` Nitesh Shetty
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2025-12-18 9:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ming Lei
Cc: Jens Axboe, linux-block, io-uring, Caleb Sander Mateos, huang-jl,
Nitesh Shetty
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 05:31:42PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> ->bi_vcnt doesn't make sense for cloned bio, which is perfectly fine
> passed to bio_may_need_split().
>
> So fix bio_may_need_split() by not taking ->bi_vcnt directly, instead
> checking with help from bio size and bvec->len.
>
> Meantime retrieving the 1st bvec via __bvec_iter_bvec().
That totally misses the point. The ->bi_vcnt is a fast and lose
check to see if we need the fairly expensive iterators to do the
real check.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/3] block: don't initialize bi_vcnt for cloned bio in bio_iov_bvec_set()
2025-12-18 9:31 ` [PATCH 2/3] block: don't initialize bi_vcnt for cloned bio in bio_iov_bvec_set() Ming Lei
@ 2025-12-18 9:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-12-18 9:48 ` Ming Lei
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2025-12-18 9:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ming Lei
Cc: Jens Axboe, linux-block, io-uring, Caleb Sander Mateos, huang-jl,
Nitesh Shetty
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 05:31:43PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> For a cloned bio, bi_vcnt should not be initialized since the bio_vec
> array is shared and owned by the original bio.
Maybe, maybe not. What is the rational for that "should" ?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: fix bio_may_need_split() by using bvec iterator way
2025-12-18 9:37 ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2025-12-18 9:45 ` Ming Lei
2025-12-18 15:16 ` Nitesh Shetty
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ming Lei @ 2025-12-18 9:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Hellwig
Cc: Jens Axboe, linux-block, io-uring, Caleb Sander Mateos, huang-jl,
Nitesh Shetty
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 01:37:37AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 05:31:42PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > ->bi_vcnt doesn't make sense for cloned bio, which is perfectly fine
> > passed to bio_may_need_split().
> >
> > So fix bio_may_need_split() by not taking ->bi_vcnt directly, instead
> > checking with help from bio size and bvec->len.
> >
> > Meantime retrieving the 1st bvec via __bvec_iter_bvec().
>
> That totally misses the point. The ->bi_vcnt is a fast and lose
> check to see if we need the fairly expensive iterators to do the
> real check.
It is just __bvec_iter_bvec(), whatever it should be in cache sooner or
later.
Thanks,
Ming
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/3] block: don't initialize bi_vcnt for cloned bio in bio_iov_bvec_set()
2025-12-18 9:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2025-12-18 9:48 ` Ming Lei
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ming Lei @ 2025-12-18 9:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Hellwig
Cc: Jens Axboe, linux-block, io-uring, Caleb Sander Mateos, huang-jl,
Nitesh Shetty
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 01:38:55AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 05:31:43PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > For a cloned bio, bi_vcnt should not be initialized since the bio_vec
> > array is shared and owned by the original bio.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. What is the rational for that "should" ?
->bi_vcnt is never set for bio allocated from bio_alloc_clone().
Thanks,
Ming
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: fix bio_may_need_split() by using bvec iterator way
2025-12-18 9:45 ` Ming Lei
@ 2025-12-18 15:16 ` Nitesh Shetty
2025-12-18 16:08 ` Ming Lei
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Nitesh Shetty @ 2025-12-18 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ming Lei
Cc: Christoph Hellwig, Jens Axboe, linux-block, io-uring,
Caleb Sander Mateos, huang-jl
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3726 bytes --]
On 18/12/25 05:45PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 01:37:37AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 05:31:42PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> > ->bi_vcnt doesn't make sense for cloned bio, which is perfectly fine
>> > passed to bio_may_need_split().
>> >
>> > So fix bio_may_need_split() by not taking ->bi_vcnt directly, instead
>> > checking with help from bio size and bvec->len.
>> >
>> > Meantime retrieving the 1st bvec via __bvec_iter_bvec().
>>
>> That totally misses the point. The ->bi_vcnt is a fast and lose
>> check to see if we need the fairly expensive iterators to do the
>> real check.
>
>It is just __bvec_iter_bvec(), whatever it should be in cache sooner or
>later.
>
>
Functionality wise overall patch looks fine to me, but as Christoph
stated there is slight performance(IOPS) penalty.
Here is my benchmarking numbers[1], I suspect Jens setup might show
more regression.
Regards,
Nitesh
[1]
===============================
a. two optane nvme device setup:
----------
base case:
----------
sudo taskset -c 0,1 /home/nitesh/src/private/fio/t/io_uring -b512 \
-d128 -c32 -s32 -p1 -F1 -B1 -n2 -r4 /dev/nvme0n1 /dev/nvme1n1
submitter=0, tid=206586, file=/dev/nvme0n1, nfiles=1, node=-1
submitter=1, tid=206587, file=/dev/nvme1n1, nfiles=1, node=-1
polled=1, fixedbufs=1, register_files=1, buffered=0, QD=128
Engine=io_uring, sq_ring=128, cq_ring=128
polled=1, fixedbufs=1, register_files=1, buffered=0, QD=128
Engine=io_uring, sq_ring=128, cq_ring=128
IOPS=6.45M, BW=3.15GiB/s, IOS/call=32/31
IOPS=6.47M, BW=3.16GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
IOPS=6.47M, BW=3.16GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
Exiting on timeout
Maximum IOPS=6.47M
----------------
with this patch:
----------------
sudo taskset -c 0,1 /home/nitesh/src/private/fio/t/io_uring -b512 \
-d128 -c32 -s32 -p1 -F1 -B1 -n2 -r4 /dev/nvme0n1 /dev/nvme1n1
submitter=0, tid=6352, file=/dev/nvme0n1, nfiles=1, node=-1
polled=1, fixedbufs=1, register_files=1, buffered=0, QD=128
Engine=io_uring, sq_ring=128, cq_ring=128
submitter=1, tid=6353, file=/dev/nvme1n1, nfiles=1, node=-1
IOPS=6.30M, BW=3.08GiB/s, IOS/call=32/31
IOPS=6.35M, BW=3.10GiB/s, IOS/call=32/31
IOPS=6.37M, BW=3.11GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
Exiting on timeout
Maximum IOPS=6.37M
=============================
b. two null-blk device setup:
------------------
null device setup:
------------------
sudo modprobe null_blk queue_mode=2 gb=10 bs=512 nr_devices=2 irqmode=2 \
completion_nsec=1000000 hw_queue_depth=256 memory_backed=0 discard=0 \
use_per_node_hctx=1
----------
base case:
----------
sudo taskset -c 0,1 /home/nitesh/src/private/fio/t/io_uring -b512 \
-d128 -c32 -s32 -p1 -F1 -B1 -n2 -r4 /dev/nullb0 /dev/nullb1
submitter=0, tid=6743, file=/dev/nullb0, nfiles=1, node=-1
submitter=1, tid=6744, file=/dev/nullb1, nfiles=1, node=-1
polled=1, fixedbufs=1, register_files=1, buffered=0, QD=128
Engine=io_uring, sq_ring=128, cq_ring=128
IOPS=7.89M, BW=3.85GiB/s, IOS/call=32/31
IOPS=7.96M, BW=3.89GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
IOPS=7.99M, BW=3.90GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
Exiting on timeout
Maximum IOPS=7.99M
-------------------
with this patchset:
-------------------
sudo taskset -c 0,1 /home/nitesh/src/private/fio/t/io_uring -b512 \
-d128 -c32 -s32 -p1 -F1 -B1 -n2 -r4 /dev/nullb0 /dev/nullb1
submitter=0, tid=35633, file=/dev/nullb0, nfiles=1, node=-1
submitter=1, tid=35634, file=/dev/nullb1, nfiles=1, node=-1
polled=1, fixedbufs=1, register_files=1, buffered=0, QD=128
Engine=io_uring, sq_ring=128, cq_ring=128
polled=1, fixedbufs=1, register_files=1, buffered=0, QD=128
Engine=io_uring, sq_ring=128, cq_ring=128
IOPS=7.79M, BW=3.80GiB/s, IOS/call=32/31
IOPS=7.86M, BW=3.84GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
IOPS=7.89M, BW=3.85GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
Exiting on timeout
Maximum IOPS=7.89M
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: fix bio_may_need_split() by using bvec iterator way
2025-12-18 15:16 ` Nitesh Shetty
@ 2025-12-18 16:08 ` Ming Lei
2025-12-20 8:16 ` Nitesh Shetty
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ming Lei @ 2025-12-18 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nitesh Shetty
Cc: Christoph Hellwig, Jens Axboe, linux-block, io-uring,
Caleb Sander Mateos, huang-jl
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 08:46:47PM +0530, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
> On 18/12/25 05:45PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 01:37:37AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 05:31:42PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > ->bi_vcnt doesn't make sense for cloned bio, which is perfectly fine
> > > > passed to bio_may_need_split().
> > > >
> > > > So fix bio_may_need_split() by not taking ->bi_vcnt directly, instead
> > > > checking with help from bio size and bvec->len.
> > > >
> > > > Meantime retrieving the 1st bvec via __bvec_iter_bvec().
> > >
> > > That totally misses the point. The ->bi_vcnt is a fast and lose
> > > check to see if we need the fairly expensive iterators to do the
> > > real check.
> >
> > It is just __bvec_iter_bvec(), whatever it should be in cache sooner or
> > later.
> >
> >
> Functionality wise overall patch looks fine to me, but as Christoph
> stated there is slight performance(IOPS) penalty.
> Here is my benchmarking numbers[1], I suspect Jens setup might show
> more regression.
>
> Regards,
> Nitesh
>
>
> [1]
> ===============================
> a. two optane nvme device setup:
> ----------
> base case:
> ----------
> sudo taskset -c 0,1 /home/nitesh/src/private/fio/t/io_uring -b512 \
> -d128 -c32 -s32 -p1 -F1 -B1 -n2 -r4 /dev/nvme0n1 /dev/nvme1n1
> submitter=0, tid=206586, file=/dev/nvme0n1, nfiles=1, node=-1
> submitter=1, tid=206587, file=/dev/nvme1n1, nfiles=1, node=-1
> polled=1, fixedbufs=1, register_files=1, buffered=0, QD=128
> Engine=io_uring, sq_ring=128, cq_ring=128
> polled=1, fixedbufs=1, register_files=1, buffered=0, QD=128
> Engine=io_uring, sq_ring=128, cq_ring=128
> IOPS=6.45M, BW=3.15GiB/s, IOS/call=32/31
> IOPS=6.47M, BW=3.16GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
> IOPS=6.47M, BW=3.16GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
> Exiting on timeout
> Maximum IOPS=6.47M
>
> ----------------
> with this patch:
> ----------------
> sudo taskset -c 0,1 /home/nitesh/src/private/fio/t/io_uring -b512 \
> -d128 -c32 -s32 -p1 -F1 -B1 -n2 -r4 /dev/nvme0n1 /dev/nvme1n1
> submitter=0, tid=6352, file=/dev/nvme0n1, nfiles=1, node=-1
> polled=1, fixedbufs=1, register_files=1, buffered=0, QD=128
> Engine=io_uring, sq_ring=128, cq_ring=128
> submitter=1, tid=6353, file=/dev/nvme1n1, nfiles=1, node=-1
> IOPS=6.30M, BW=3.08GiB/s, IOS/call=32/31
> IOPS=6.35M, BW=3.10GiB/s, IOS/call=32/31
> IOPS=6.37M, BW=3.11GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
> Exiting on timeout
> Maximum IOPS=6.37M
>
> =============================
> b. two null-blk device setup:
> ------------------
> null device setup:
> ------------------
> sudo modprobe null_blk queue_mode=2 gb=10 bs=512 nr_devices=2 irqmode=2 \
> completion_nsec=1000000 hw_queue_depth=256 memory_backed=0 discard=0 \
> use_per_node_hctx=1
>
> ----------
> base case:
> ----------
> sudo taskset -c 0,1 /home/nitesh/src/private/fio/t/io_uring -b512 \
> -d128 -c32 -s32 -p1 -F1 -B1 -n2 -r4 /dev/nullb0 /dev/nullb1
> submitter=0, tid=6743, file=/dev/nullb0, nfiles=1, node=-1
> submitter=1, tid=6744, file=/dev/nullb1, nfiles=1, node=-1
> polled=1, fixedbufs=1, register_files=1, buffered=0, QD=128
> Engine=io_uring, sq_ring=128, cq_ring=128
> IOPS=7.89M, BW=3.85GiB/s, IOS/call=32/31
> IOPS=7.96M, BW=3.89GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
> IOPS=7.99M, BW=3.90GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
> Exiting on timeout
> Maximum IOPS=7.99M
>
> -------------------
> with this patchset:
> -------------------
> sudo taskset -c 0,1 /home/nitesh/src/private/fio/t/io_uring -b512 \
> -d128 -c32 -s32 -p1 -F1 -B1 -n2 -r4 /dev/nullb0 /dev/nullb1
> submitter=0, tid=35633, file=/dev/nullb0, nfiles=1, node=-1
> submitter=1, tid=35634, file=/dev/nullb1, nfiles=1, node=-1
> polled=1, fixedbufs=1, register_files=1, buffered=0, QD=128
> Engine=io_uring, sq_ring=128, cq_ring=128
> polled=1, fixedbufs=1, register_files=1, buffered=0, QD=128
> Engine=io_uring, sq_ring=128, cq_ring=128
> IOPS=7.79M, BW=3.80GiB/s, IOS/call=32/31
> IOPS=7.86M, BW=3.84GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
> IOPS=7.89M, BW=3.85GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
> Exiting on timeout
> Maximum IOPS=7.89M
Thanks for the perf test!
This patch only adds bio->bi_iter memory footprint, which is supposed
to hit from L1, maybe because `bi_io_vec` is in the 2nd cacheline, can
you see any difference with the following change?
diff --git a/include/linux/blk_types.h b/include/linux/blk_types.h
index 5dc061d318a4..1c4570b37436 100644
--- a/include/linux/blk_types.h
+++ b/include/linux/blk_types.h
@@ -240,6 +240,7 @@ struct bio {
/* for plugged zoned writes only: */
unsigned int __bi_nr_segments;
};
+ struct bio_vec *bi_io_vec; /* the actual vec list */
bio_end_io_t *bi_end_io;
void *bi_private;
#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_CGROUP
@@ -275,8 +276,6 @@ struct bio {
atomic_t __bi_cnt; /* pin count */
- struct bio_vec *bi_io_vec; /* the actual vec list */
-
struct bio_set *bi_pool;
};
Thanks,
Ming
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: fix bio_may_need_split() by using bvec iterator way
2025-12-18 16:08 ` Ming Lei
@ 2025-12-20 8:16 ` Nitesh Shetty
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Nitesh Shetty @ 2025-12-20 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ming Lei
Cc: Christoph Hellwig, Jens Axboe, linux-block, io-uring,
Caleb Sander Mateos, huang-jl
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5205 bytes --]
On 19/12/25 12:08AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 08:46:47PM +0530, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
>> On 18/12/25 05:45PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 01:37:37AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 05:31:42PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> > > > ->bi_vcnt doesn't make sense for cloned bio, which is perfectly fine
>> > > > passed to bio_may_need_split().
>> > > >
>> > > > So fix bio_may_need_split() by not taking ->bi_vcnt directly, instead
>> > > > checking with help from bio size and bvec->len.
>> > > >
>> > > > Meantime retrieving the 1st bvec via __bvec_iter_bvec().
>> > >
>> > > That totally misses the point. The ->bi_vcnt is a fast and lose
>> > > check to see if we need the fairly expensive iterators to do the
>> > > real check.
>> >
>> > It is just __bvec_iter_bvec(), whatever it should be in cache sooner or
>> > later.
>> >
>> >
>> Functionality wise overall patch looks fine to me, but as Christoph
>> stated there is slight performance(IOPS) penalty.
>> Here is my benchmarking numbers[1], I suspect Jens setup might show
>> more regression.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Nitesh
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> ===============================
>> a. two optane nvme device setup:
>> ----------
>> base case:
>> ----------
>> sudo taskset -c 0,1 /home/nitesh/src/private/fio/t/io_uring -b512 \
>> -d128 -c32 -s32 -p1 -F1 -B1 -n2 -r4 /dev/nvme0n1 /dev/nvme1n1
>> submitter=0, tid=206586, file=/dev/nvme0n1, nfiles=1, node=-1
>> submitter=1, tid=206587, file=/dev/nvme1n1, nfiles=1, node=-1
>> polled=1, fixedbufs=1, register_files=1, buffered=0, QD=128
>> Engine=io_uring, sq_ring=128, cq_ring=128
>> polled=1, fixedbufs=1, register_files=1, buffered=0, QD=128
>> Engine=io_uring, sq_ring=128, cq_ring=128
>> IOPS=6.45M, BW=3.15GiB/s, IOS/call=32/31
>> IOPS=6.47M, BW=3.16GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
>> IOPS=6.47M, BW=3.16GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
>> Exiting on timeout
>> Maximum IOPS=6.47M
>>
>> ----------------
>> with this patch:
>> ----------------
>> sudo taskset -c 0,1 /home/nitesh/src/private/fio/t/io_uring -b512 \
>> -d128 -c32 -s32 -p1 -F1 -B1 -n2 -r4 /dev/nvme0n1 /dev/nvme1n1
>> submitter=0, tid=6352, file=/dev/nvme0n1, nfiles=1, node=-1
>> polled=1, fixedbufs=1, register_files=1, buffered=0, QD=128
>> Engine=io_uring, sq_ring=128, cq_ring=128
>> submitter=1, tid=6353, file=/dev/nvme1n1, nfiles=1, node=-1
>> IOPS=6.30M, BW=3.08GiB/s, IOS/call=32/31
>> IOPS=6.35M, BW=3.10GiB/s, IOS/call=32/31
>> IOPS=6.37M, BW=3.11GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
>> Exiting on timeout
>> Maximum IOPS=6.37M
>>
>> =============================
>> b. two null-blk device setup:
>> ------------------
>> null device setup:
>> ------------------
>> sudo modprobe null_blk queue_mode=2 gb=10 bs=512 nr_devices=2 irqmode=2 \
>> completion_nsec=1000000 hw_queue_depth=256 memory_backed=0 discard=0 \
>> use_per_node_hctx=1
>>
>> ----------
>> base case:
>> ----------
>> sudo taskset -c 0,1 /home/nitesh/src/private/fio/t/io_uring -b512 \
>> -d128 -c32 -s32 -p1 -F1 -B1 -n2 -r4 /dev/nullb0 /dev/nullb1
>> submitter=0, tid=6743, file=/dev/nullb0, nfiles=1, node=-1
>> submitter=1, tid=6744, file=/dev/nullb1, nfiles=1, node=-1
>> polled=1, fixedbufs=1, register_files=1, buffered=0, QD=128
>> Engine=io_uring, sq_ring=128, cq_ring=128
>> IOPS=7.89M, BW=3.85GiB/s, IOS/call=32/31
>> IOPS=7.96M, BW=3.89GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
>> IOPS=7.99M, BW=3.90GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
>> Exiting on timeout
>> Maximum IOPS=7.99M
>>
>> -------------------
>> with this patchset:
>> -------------------
>> sudo taskset -c 0,1 /home/nitesh/src/private/fio/t/io_uring -b512 \
>> -d128 -c32 -s32 -p1 -F1 -B1 -n2 -r4 /dev/nullb0 /dev/nullb1
>> submitter=0, tid=35633, file=/dev/nullb0, nfiles=1, node=-1
>> submitter=1, tid=35634, file=/dev/nullb1, nfiles=1, node=-1
>> polled=1, fixedbufs=1, register_files=1, buffered=0, QD=128
>> Engine=io_uring, sq_ring=128, cq_ring=128
>> polled=1, fixedbufs=1, register_files=1, buffered=0, QD=128
>> Engine=io_uring, sq_ring=128, cq_ring=128
>> IOPS=7.79M, BW=3.80GiB/s, IOS/call=32/31
>> IOPS=7.86M, BW=3.84GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
>> IOPS=7.89M, BW=3.85GiB/s, IOS/call=32/32
>> Exiting on timeout
>> Maximum IOPS=7.89M
>
>Thanks for the perf test!
>
>This patch only adds bio->bi_iter memory footprint, which is supposed
>to hit from L1, maybe because `bi_io_vec` is in the 2nd cacheline, can
>you see any difference with the following change?
>
>
>diff --git a/include/linux/blk_types.h b/include/linux/blk_types.h
>index 5dc061d318a4..1c4570b37436 100644
>--- a/include/linux/blk_types.h
>+++ b/include/linux/blk_types.h
>@@ -240,6 +240,7 @@ struct bio {
> /* for plugged zoned writes only: */
> unsigned int __bi_nr_segments;
> };
>+ struct bio_vec *bi_io_vec; /* the actual vec list */
> bio_end_io_t *bi_end_io;
> void *bi_private;
> #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_CGROUP
>@@ -275,8 +276,6 @@ struct bio {
>
> atomic_t __bi_cnt; /* pin count */
>
>- struct bio_vec *bi_io_vec; /* the actual vec list */
>-
> struct bio_set *bi_pool;
> };
>
With above patch perf numbers match the base case.
Thanks,
Nitesh Shetty
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: fix bio_may_need_split() by using bvec iterator way
2025-12-18 9:31 ` [PATCH 1/3] block: fix bio_may_need_split() by using bvec iterator way Ming Lei
2025-12-18 9:37 ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2025-12-20 8:19 ` Nitesh Shetty
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Nitesh Shetty @ 2025-12-20 8:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ming Lei; +Cc: Jens Axboe, linux-block, io-uring, Caleb Sander Mateos, huang-jl
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1146 bytes --]
On 18/12/25 05:31PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>->bi_vcnt doesn't make sense for cloned bio, which is perfectly fine
>passed to bio_may_need_split().
>
>So fix bio_may_need_split() by not taking ->bi_vcnt directly, instead
>checking with help from bio size and bvec->len.
>
>Meantime retrieving the 1st bvec via __bvec_iter_bvec().
>
>Fixes: abd45c159df5 ("block: handle fast path of bio splitting inline")
>Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
>---
> block/blk.h | 13 ++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/block/blk.h b/block/blk.h
>index e4c433f62dfc..a0b9cecba8fa 100644
>--- a/block/blk.h
>+++ b/block/blk.h
>@@ -371,12 +371,19 @@ struct bio *bio_split_zone_append(struct bio *bio,
> static inline bool bio_may_need_split(struct bio *bio,
> const struct queue_limits *lim)
> {
>+ const struct bio_vec *bv;
>+
> if (lim->chunk_sectors)
> return true;
>- if (bio->bi_vcnt != 1)
>+
>+ if ((bio_op(bio) != REQ_OP_READ && bio_op(bio) != REQ_OP_WRITE) ||
>+ !bio->bi_io_vec)
REQ_OP_READ, REQ_OP_WRITE check is not necessary, since bio_may_need_split
is always called for READ/WRITE.
Thanks,
Nitesh
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-12-20 8:20 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-12-18 9:31 [PATCH 0/3] block: fix bi_vcnt misuse for cloned bio Ming Lei
2025-12-18 9:31 ` [PATCH 1/3] block: fix bio_may_need_split() by using bvec iterator way Ming Lei
2025-12-18 9:37 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-12-18 9:45 ` Ming Lei
2025-12-18 15:16 ` Nitesh Shetty
2025-12-18 16:08 ` Ming Lei
2025-12-20 8:16 ` Nitesh Shetty
2025-12-20 8:19 ` Nitesh Shetty
2025-12-18 9:31 ` [PATCH 2/3] block: don't initialize bi_vcnt for cloned bio in bio_iov_bvec_set() Ming Lei
2025-12-18 9:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-12-18 9:48 ` Ming Lei
2025-12-18 9:31 ` [PATCH 3/3] io_uring: don't re-calculate iov_iter nr_segs in io_import_kbuf() Ming Lei
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox