On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Guangliang Zhao <gzhao@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The bio_pair alloced in bio_chain_clone would not be freed,
> this will cause a memory leak. It could be freed actually only
> after 3 times release, because the reference count of bio_pair
> is initialized to 3 when bio_split and bio_pair_release only
> drops the reference count.
>
> The function bio_pair_release must be called three times for
> releasing bio_pair, and the callback functions of bios on the
> requests will be called when the last release time in bio_pair_release,
> however, these functions will also be called in rbd_req_cb. In
> other words, they will be called twice, and it may cause serious
> consequences.
>
> This patch clones bio chian from the origin directly, doesn't use
> bio_split(without bio_pair). The new bio chain can be release
> whenever we don't need it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Guangliang Zhao <gzhao@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/block/rbd.c | 66
> ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------
> 1 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/rbd.c b/drivers/block/rbd.c
> index 013c7a5..6a12040 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/rbd.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/rbd.c
> @@ -712,51 +712,43 @@ static void zero_bio_chain(struct bio *chain, int
> start_ofs)
> }
> }
>
> -/*
> - * bio_chain_clone - clone a chain of bios up to a certain length.
> - * might return a bio_pair that will need to be released.
> +/**
> + * bio_chain_clone - clone a chain of bios up to a certain length.
> + * @old: bio to clone
> + * @offset: start point for bio clone
> + * @len: length of bio chain
> + * @gfp_mask: allocation priority
> + *
> + * RETURNS:
> + * Pointer to new bio chain on success, NULL on failure.
> */
> -static struct bio *bio_chain_clone(struct bio **old, struct bio **next,
> - struct bio_pair **bp,
> +static struct bio *bio_chain_clone(struct bio **old, int *offset,
> int len, gfp_t gfpmask)
> {
> struct bio *tmp, *old_chain = *old, *new_chain = NULL, *tail =
> NULL;
> int total = 0;
>
> - if (*bp) {
> - bio_pair_release(*bp);
> - *bp = NULL;
> - }
> -
> while (old_chain && (total < len)) {
> + int need = len - total;
> +
> tmp = bio_kmalloc(gfpmask, old_chain->bi_max_vecs);
> if (!tmp)
> goto err_out;
>
> - if (total + old_chain->bi_size > len) {
> - struct bio_pair *bp;
> -
> + __bio_clone(tmp, old_chain);
> + if (total + (tmp->bi_size - *offset) > len) {
can change this to:
if (tmp->bi_size - *offset > need)
I think it'll be slightly more readable
> + tmp->bi_sector += *offset >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
> + tmp->bi_io_vec->bv_offset += *offset >>
> SECTOR_SHIFT;
Shouldn't these two lines be outside this if?
> /*
> - * this split can only happen with a single paged
> bio,
> - * split_bio will BUG_ON if this is not the case
> + * This can only happen with a single paged bio,
> + * rbd_merge_bvec would guarantee it.
> */
> - dout("bio_chain_clone split! total=%d
> remaining=%d"
> - "bi_size=%d\n",
> - (int)total, (int)len-total,
> - (int)old_chain->bi_size);
> -
> - /* split the bio. We'll release it either in the
> next
> - call, or it will have to be released outside */
> - bp = bio_split(old_chain, (len - total) /
> SECTOR_SIZE);
> - if (!bp)
> - goto err_out;
> -
> - __bio_clone(tmp, &bp->bio1);
> -
> - *next = &bp->bio2;
> + tmp->bi_size = need;
> + tmp->bi_io_vec->bv_len = need;
> + *offset += need;
> } else {
> - __bio_clone(tmp, old_chain);
> - *next = old_chain->bi_next;
> + old_chain = old_chain->bi_next;
> + *offset = 0;
> }
>
> tmp->bi_bdev = NULL;
> @@ -769,7 +761,6 @@ static struct bio *bio_chain_clone(struct bio **old,
> struct bio **next,
> tail->bi_next = tmp;
> tail = tmp;
> }
> - old_chain = old_chain->bi_next;
>
> total += tmp->bi_size;
> }
> @@ -1447,13 +1438,12 @@ static void rbd_rq_fn(struct request_queue *q)
> {
> struct rbd_device *rbd_dev = q->queuedata;
> struct request *rq;
> - struct bio_pair *bp = NULL;
>
> while ((rq = blk_fetch_request(q))) {
> struct bio *bio;
> - struct bio *rq_bio, *next_bio = NULL;
> + struct bio *rq_bio;
> bool do_write;
> - int size, op_size = 0;
> + int size, op_size = 0, offset = 0;
> u64 ofs;
> int num_segs, cur_seg = 0;
> struct rbd_req_coll *coll;
> @@ -1503,7 +1493,7 @@ static void rbd_rq_fn(struct request_queue *q)
> ofs, size,
> NULL, NULL);
> kref_get(&coll->kref);
> - bio = bio_chain_clone(&rq_bio, &next_bio, &bp,
> + bio = bio_chain_clone(&rq_bio, &offset,
> op_size, GFP_ATOMIC);
> if (!bio) {
> rbd_coll_end_req_index(rq, coll, cur_seg,
> @@ -1531,12 +1521,8 @@ next_seg:
> ofs += op_size;
>
> cur_seg++;
> - rq_bio = next_bio;
> } while (size > 0);
> kref_put(&coll->kref, rbd_coll_release);
> -
> - if (bp)
> - bio_pair_release(bp);
> spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock);
> }
> }
Yeah, looks cleaner.
Thanks,
Yehuda
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
