On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 12:15 PM Mike Snitzer <snit...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 19 2023 at 8:48P -0400, > Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukr...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > dm-thinpool uses the provision request to provision > > blocks for a dm-thin device. dm-thinpool currently does not > > pass through REQ_OP_PROVISION to underlying devices. > > > > For shared blocks, provision requests will break sharing and copy the > > contents of the entire block. Additionally, if 'skip_block_zeroing' > > is not set, dm-thin will opt to zero out the entire range as a part > > of provisioning. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukr...@chromium.org> > > --- > > drivers/md/dm-thin.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-thin.c b/drivers/md/dm-thin.c > > index 2b13c949bd72..58d633f5c928 100644 > > --- a/drivers/md/dm-thin.c > > +++ b/drivers/md/dm-thin.c > > @@ -1891,7 +1893,8 @@ static void process_shared_bio(struct thin_c *tc, > > struct bio *bio, > > > > if (bio_data_dir(bio) == WRITE && bio->bi_iter.bi_size) { > > break_sharing(tc, bio, block, &key, lookup_result, data_cell); > > - cell_defer_no_holder(tc, virt_cell); > > + if (bio_op(bio) != REQ_OP_PROVISION) > > + cell_defer_no_holder(tc, virt_cell); > > Can you please explain why cell_defer_no_holder() is skipped for > REQ_OP_PROVISION here? > I recalled seeing a BUG in dm-prison-v1 if I allowed cell_defer_no_holder() for REQ_OP_PROVISION, but from additional testing, it looks like it was left behind from a cleanup in v4. Dropped in v6.
Thanks Sarthak > Thanks, > Mike -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel