[dm-devel] [PATCH 2/5] block: make bio_inc_remaining() interface accessible again

[Mike Snitzer]

On Fri, May 06 2016 at 11:25am -0400,
Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de> wrote:

> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 11:54:22AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > Commit 326e1dbb57 ("block: remove management of bi_remaining when
> > restoring original bi_end_io") made bio_inc_remaining() private to bio.c
> > because the only use-case that made sense was confined to the
> > bio_chain() interface.
> > 
> > Since that time DM thinp went on to use bio_chain() in its relatively
> > complex implementation of async discard support.  That implementation,
> > even when converted over to use the new async __blkdev_issue_discard()
> > interface, depends on deferred completion of the original discard bio --
> > which is most appropriately implemented using bio_inc_remaining().
> 
> Can you explain that code flow to me?  I still fail to why exactly
> dm-thinp (and only dm-thinp) needs this.  Maybe start by pointing me
> to the additional bio_endio that pairs with the bio_inc_remaining
> call.

If you look at the latest code here:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/log/?h=dm-4.7

dm-thin.c:break_up_discard_bio()'s bio_inc_remaining() is paired with
dm-thin.c:end_discard()'s bio_endio()

But the flow is:

-> process_discard_cell_passdown
   -> break_up_discard_bio (per-mapping reference taken on original discard bio)
   -> bio_endio(original discard bio) -- cleanest place to complete
      it.. but doing so here requires extra references on that discard
      bio because we must wait for the N mappings and associated
      sub-discard bios to be chained, issued, and completed

... wait for associated sub-discard mappings to quiesce and become "prepared"...

-> process_prepared_discard_passdown (bio-chains aren't constructed until here)
   -> passdown_double_checking_shared_status (iterates over each mappings' subset of the original discard)
      -> __blkdev_issue_discard
      -> bio_endio (per-mapping reference, taken in break_up_discard_bio, is dropped)

> > All said, bio_inc_remaining() should really only be used in conjunction
> > with bio_chain().  It isn't intended for generic bio reference counting.
> 
> It's obviously used outside bio_chain in dm-thinp, so this sentence
> doesn't make too much sense to me.

It is used in conjunction with supporting thinp's use of bio_chain(),
via __blkdev_issue_discard, but yeah I can see why you think they aren't
related.