> +static void blkdev_copy_emulation_work(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> + struct blkdev_copy_emulation_io *emulation_io = container_of(work,
> + struct blkdev_copy_emulation_io, emulation_work);
> + struct blkdev_copy_io *cio = emulation_io->cio;
> + struct bio *read_bio, *write_bio;
> + loff_t pos_in = emulation_io->pos_in, pos_out = emulation_io->pos_out;
> + ssize_t rem, chunk;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + for (rem = emulation_io->len; rem > 0; rem -= chunk) {
> + chunk = min_t(int, emulation_io->buf_len, rem);
> +
> + read_bio = bio_map_buf(emulation_io->buf,
> + emulation_io->buf_len,
> + emulation_io->gfp);
> + if (IS_ERR(read_bio)) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(read_bio);
> + break;
> + }
> + read_bio->bi_opf = REQ_OP_READ | REQ_SYNC;
> + bio_set_dev(read_bio, emulation_io->bdev_in);
> + read_bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = pos_in >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
> + read_bio->bi_iter.bi_size = chunk;
> + ret = submit_bio_wait(read_bio);
> + kfree(read_bio);
Hi, Nitesh,
blk_mq_map_bio_put(read_bio)?
or bio_uninit(read_bio); kfree(read_bio)?
> + if (ret)
> + break;
> +
> + write_bio = bio_map_buf(emulation_io->buf,
> + emulation_io->buf_len,
> + emulation_io->gfp);
> + if (IS_ERR(write_bio)) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(write_bio);
> + break;
> + }
> + write_bio->bi_opf = REQ_OP_WRITE | REQ_SYNC;
> + bio_set_dev(write_bio, emulation_io->bdev_out);
> + write_bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = pos_out >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
> + write_bio->bi_iter.bi_size = chunk;
> + ret = submit_bio_wait(write_bio);
> + kfree(write_bio);
blk_mq_map_bio_put(write_bio) ?
or bio_uninit(write_bio); kfree(write_bio)?
hmm...
It continuously allocates and releases memory for bio,
Why don't you just allocate and reuse bio outside the loop?
> + if (ret)
> + break;
> +
> + pos_in += chunk;
> + pos_out += chunk;
> + }
> + cio->status = ret;
> + kvfree(emulation_io->buf);
> + kfree(emulation_io);
I have not usually seen an implementation that releases memory for
itself while performing a worker. ( I don't know what's right. :) )
Since blkdev_copy_emulation() allocates memory for the emulation
and waits for it to be completed, wouldn't it be better to proceed
with the memory release for it in the same context?
That is, IMO, wouldn't it be better to free the memory related to
emulation in blkdev_copy_wait_io_completion()?
Best Regards,
Jinyoung.
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
