On Thu, Oct 05 2017, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>
> El Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 10:58:59AM +1100 NeilBrown ha dit:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 05 2017, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>>
>> > The raid10 driver can't be built with clang since it uses a variable
>> > length array in a structure (VLAIS):
>> >
>> > drivers/md/raid10.c:4583:17: error: fields must have a constant size:
>> > 'variable length array in structure' extension will never be supported
>> >
>> > Allocate the r10bio struct with kmalloc instead of using the VLAIS
>> > construct.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > drivers/md/raid10.c | 13 ++++++++-----
>> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/md/raid10.c b/drivers/md/raid10.c
>> > index 374df5796649..9616163eaf8c 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/md/raid10.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/md/raid10.c
>> > @@ -4578,15 +4578,16 @@ static int handle_reshape_read_error(struct mddev *mddev,
>> > /* Use sync reads to get the blocks from somewhere else */
>> > int sectors = r10_bio->sectors;
>> > struct r10conf *conf = mddev->private;
>> > - struct {
>> > - struct r10bio r10_bio;
>> > - struct r10dev devs[conf->copies];
>> > - } on_stack;
>> > - struct r10bio *r10b = &on_stack.r10_bio;
>> > + struct r10bio *r10b;
>> > int slot = 0;
>> > int idx = 0;
>> > struct page **pages;
>> >
>> > + r10b = kmalloc(sizeof(*r10b) +
>> > + sizeof(struct r10dev) * conf->copies, GFP_KERNEL);
>>
>> GFP_KERNEL isn't a good idea here.
>> This could wait for writeback, and if writeback tries to write to the
>> region of the array which is being reshaped, it might deadlock.
>>
>> GFP_NOIO is safer.
>
> Good point, thanks!
>
>> given that conf->copies is almost always 2 it might be nicer to
>> have
>>
>> struct {
>> struct r10bio r10_bio;
>> struct r10dev devs[2];
>> } on_stack;
>>
>> struct r10bio *r10b;
>>
>> if (conf->copies <= ARRAY_SIZE(on_stack.devs))
>> r10b = &on_stack.r10_bio;
>> else
>> r10b = kmalloc(sizeof(*r10b) +
>> sizeof(struct r10dev) * conf->copies, GFP_NOIO);
>
> It would add also add an extra condition to determine if r10b needs to
> be freed or not.
True.
>
> Given that array reshaping is a rare operation and an error during
> this operation is an exceptional condition I think the simpler code
> with always dynamic allocation is preferable. That said I'm fine with
> reworking the patch according to your suggestion if you or Shaohua
> prefer it.
I don't feel strongly about it. As long as the GFP_KERNEL->GFP_NOIO
change happens I'm OK with this patch.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
>
> Matthias
>
>> > + if (!r10b)
>> > + return -ENOMEM;
>> > +
>> > /* reshape IOs share pages from .devs[0].bio */
>> > pages = get_resync_pages(r10_bio->devs[0].bio)->pages;
>> >
>> > @@ -4635,11 +4636,13 @@ static int handle_reshape_read_error(struct mddev *mddev,
>> > /* couldn't read this block, must give up */
>> > set_bit(MD_RECOVERY_INTR,
>> > &mddev->recovery);
>> > + kfree(r10b);
>> > return -EIO;
>> > }
>> > sectors -= s;
>> > idx++;
>> > }
>> > + kfree(r10b);
>> > return 0;
>> > }
>> >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
