On 2024-06-25 00:29, yskelg@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Yunseong Kim <yskelg@xxxxxxxxx>
Make memory allocation more precise (based on maxzqs) by allocating
memory only for the queues that are truly affected by the online state
changes.
Fixes: df6f508c68db ("s390/ap/zcrypt: notify userspace with online,
config and mode info")
Link:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-s390/your-ad-here.call-01625406648-ext-2488@work.hours/
What is this Link here? It is pointing to a PR for a 5.14 kernel and has
no relation to this patch.
Cc: linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Yunseong Kim <yskelg@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_card.c | 16 +++++++---------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_card.c
b/drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_card.c
index 050462d95222..2c80be3f2a00 100644
--- a/drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_card.c
+++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_card.c
@@ -88,9 +88,10 @@ static ssize_t online_store(struct device *dev,
* the zqueue objects, we make sure they exist after lock release.
*/
list_for_each_entry(zq, &zc->zqueues, list)
- maxzqs++;
+ if (!!zq->online != !!online)
I don't like this line. It is code duplication from the zcrypt_queue.c
file
and uses knowledge about the internals of the zqueue which is not
appropriate
here in zcrypt_card.c. Please note also that usually the total number of
queues attached to a card is in a one digit range. As kcalloc() anyway
uses
the kmalloc pool which is ordered in powers of two it is unlikely to
really
spare some memory by only allocating a pointer space for the online
queues.
+ maxzqs++;
if (maxzqs > 0)
- zq_uelist = kcalloc(maxzqs + 1, sizeof(*zq_uelist), GFP_ATOMIC);
+ zq_uelist = kcalloc(maxzqs, sizeof(*zq_uelist), GFP_ATOMIC);
Your improvement about removal of the +1 and use the i value later
instead
of my implementation which uses a NULL as end of list is valid and makes
sense
to me.
list_for_each_entry(zq, &zc->zqueues, list)
if (zcrypt_queue_force_online(zq, online))
if (zq_uelist) {
@@ -98,14 +99,11 @@ static ssize_t online_store(struct device *dev,
zq_uelist[i++] = zq;
}
spin_unlock(&zcrypt_list_lock);
- if (zq_uelist) {
- for (i = 0; zq_uelist[i]; i++) {
- zq = zq_uelist[i];
- ap_send_online_uevent(&zq->queue->ap_dev, online);
- zcrypt_queue_put(zq);
- }
- kfree(zq_uelist);
+ while (i--) {
+ ap_send_online_uevent(&zq->queue->ap_dev, online);
+ zcrypt_queue_put(zq_uelist[i]);
The content of this while loop is NOT covering the old code. zq is not
set any more and thus the ap_sen_online_uevent() uses a random zq which
is a left over from the list_for_each() loop.
}
+ kfree(zq_uelist);
return count;
}
You sent another patch for the online_store() function with exactly the
same code changes. I would see these changes as one patch and don't want
to have more or less equal changes spread over two patches.
I am sorry, I will not pick this and the online_store() patch.
regards Harald Freudenberger
