On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 9:56 PM Johannes Thumshirn
<Johannes.Thumshirn@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 11/12/2020 15:57, SelvaKumar S wrote:
> [...]
> > +int blk_copy_emulate(struct block_device *bdev, struct blk_copy_payload *payload,
> > + gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > +{
> > + struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(bdev);
> > + struct bio *bio;
> > + void *buf = NULL;
> > + int i, nr_srcs, max_range_len, ret, cur_dest, cur_size;
> > +
> > + nr_srcs = payload->copy_range;
> > + max_range_len = q->limits.max_copy_range_sectors << SECTOR_SHIFT;
> > + cur_dest = payload->dest;
> > + buf = kvmalloc(max_range_len, GFP_ATOMIC);
>
> Why GFP_ATOMIC and not the passed in gfp_mask? Especially as this is a kvmalloc()
> which has the potential to grow quite big.
>
> > +int __blkdev_issue_copy(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t dest,
> > + sector_t nr_srcs, struct range_entry *rlist, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > + int flags, struct bio **biop)
> > +{
>
> [...]
>
> > + total_size = struct_size(payload, range, nr_srcs);
> > + payload = kmalloc(total_size, GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN);
>
> Same here.
>
>
> > diff --git a/block/ioctl.c b/block/ioctl.c
> > index 6b785181344f..a4a507d85e56 100644
> > --- a/block/ioctl.c
> > +++ b/block/ioctl.c
> > @@ -142,6 +142,47 @@ static int blk_ioctl_discard(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
> > GFP_KERNEL, flags);
> > }
> >
> > +static int blk_ioctl_copy(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
> > + unsigned long arg, unsigned long flags)
> > +{
>
> [...]
>
> > +
> > + rlist = kmalloc_array(crange.nr_range, sizeof(*rlist),
> > + GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN);
>
> And here. I think this one can even be GFP_KERNEL.
>
>
>
Thanks. Will fix this.
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
